I’ve done a little thinking about the Olympic protests the past few days and I can’t make up my mind on what I think of them. One moment I decide to condemn them, the next I say full speed ahead. My general disposition, though, is negative and I’ll try to articulate my reasons. There are two major problems with the protests: the protests become the news at the expense of the original issue; and the behaviour of aggressive and violent protesters alienates the viewing public.
Buried within reports of diverted routes and Gordon Brown’s reluctance to actually touch the torch lies the Tibet situation. While I would have expected protests anyway, recent violence in Tibet turned them into a major event. Unfortunately, it’s the protests that are the major event and not the grievances they purport to protest. I follow the news pretty closely but I am little more educated about Tibet than I was a couple months ago. That’s a sign that the protests are failing.
How much more effective could the protests have been? Perhaps part of the blame lies with the media for emphasizing the disruptions along the torch route but the news corps have always been a convenient punching bag. Much of the real problem lies with hooligans who attack torch-bearers and their security with reckless abandon. In reality, it is them, not the peaceful protests, that lead to route changes and news coverage. There is a similar precedent with animal activists and anti-globalism protesters. I think one major reason animal rights activism gains little traction is because of the guerilla tactics of groups like PETA and anti-whaling groups. When the protesters become the news for the wrong reason, people cease to care about the issue in the first place.
Switching gears a little bit, it’s interesting how Tibet has been the spark for the protests instead of China’s other well-publicized human rights situations. It shows how important celebrity and public opinion are in international politics. Tibetans have always been in the American consciousness over other oppressed peoples because of the popularity of Buddhism and the celebrity of the Dalai Llama on this side of the Pacific. In the case of the European protests, I can’t speak much to their mindset but I do know they protest for anyone and anything. Tibet stirs up more anti-Chinese fervor than any other issue, be it Darfur, lead paint, or currency devaluing.
In my opinion, though, the protests miss a couple of important points when they call for Tibetan independence. First, there are many problems inherent in the potential independence of a small, mixed-ethnicity region. I’ll discuss this in more detail in another post but as an example look at the problems in Kosovo. Second, there is a convenient selectivity of facts. I’m not going to sit here and pretend that Tibetans haven’t been oppressed for decades but the knife should cut both ways. The reality that Tibetans participated in sickening violence against ethnic Chinese seems to have escaped many reports. I wonder if it would make a difference if this were more widely publicized.
Finally, I want to say a few words about the possibility of boycotting the Olympics or at least the Opening Ceremonies. In practice, politics and the Olympics have always been inseparable. However, the threat of boycotting the Olympics should and will be an empty one. Should the London Olympics in 2012 be boycotted because of England’s involvement in the Iraq war? Of course not. The ramifications of inserting such drastic political measures into an event that should promote humanity and togetherness would be dangerous. I’m guessing the boycotts of the 1980 and 1984 Olympics weren’t too helpful in any attempts at peace. Wounding the pride of a future superpower by boycotting its showcase event would do more harm than aid. I think private citizens, such as Steven Spielberg who decided against working with the Olympics in protest of Chinese policies in Sudan, could be much more effective than political entities.
This is a wonderful issue to discuss, and one I’ve been troubled by for quite some time.
Initially, I was confused by China - Tibet offers zero natural resources, and an overall negative burden on any nation with its illiteracy rate. So, if they want to go off and form their own, religious, undeveloped, uneducated, irrelevant country, than why not right?
And I understand China’s interests of not letting shit get out of line. But seriously, to jeopardize economic prosperity from the Olympics to make a stand here seems childish at best.
But you raise a myriad of interesting points. Tibetan violence against the mainland Chinese is something I’ve never heard of - I’ll be sure to research it.
I suppose what’s most interesting to me is the nature of protestation in general - like you said, what the hell are most people protesting? I’m sure you and I have at least a rudimentary understanding of what’s at stake, but drunk, uneducated college students going to events to make friends or get laid? And believe me, uneducated is the very definition of college for most Americans.
In closing - I would actually love to see a major boycott of the China Olympics. I think that if it was a major enough boycott, in our current culture of globalism and humanitarianism, that it could take the Olympics to a whole new level, as a representation of cooperation between nations that truly values human excellence over petty squabbles, that appreciates athletic competition over military superiority, and that gives the entire world a reason to put hate aside for a moment, and enjoy the fruits of honest, human perseverance.
Tibet is being oppressed by China, that is a fact. Tibet as a country also has a right to self determination that is also a fact.
Tibet was independent until China annexed it, that’s a fact as well.
It’s certainly a mixed ethnic country NOW since China has been shipping people into Tibet to make it so.
“The reality that Tibetans participated in sickening violence against ethnic Chinese”
Are you sure you haven’t made that up? Or are you reporting the Chinese Government, that well known beacon of truth?
Problems with Kosovo/Yugoslavia, it’s amazing how often that misleading example is used even when it has no relevance.
Too small and poor to be independent? That’s what every repressive regime always says. Tibet should demand the independence they have every right to.
China can hold the Olympics but the quid pro quo is that they need to uphold democracy and open discussions with Tibet’s political leaders. The fact that the international community has ignored the plight of Tibet for so long is an international disgrace.
The preponderance of Western coverage on Tibet is anti-Chinese. Honestly, that’s as it should be for the mere reason you state at the beginning: Tibet is being oppressed by China. Still, I wanted to think about the issue/crisis beyond simply ‘Free Tibet.’ In any case, here are responses and thoughts to the points you raise.
1. I remembered reading in the Economist or BBC about Tibetan violence against ethnic Chinese then decided to look into it before writing about it here. Whether it was justified or not (the recent violence was precipitated by Chinese draconianism after all) is another discussion, but it did happen:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0314/p99s07-woap.html (1st hand accounts0
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/world/asia/15tibet.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogi
2. I mentioned Kosovo as a comparison in terms of mixed ethnicity. Yes, China annexed Tibet sixty-odd years ago but the reality is that now there is a mixed population. You can’t just deport all the ethnic Chinese out. Kosovo is similar because it too has a mixed population dominated by one ethnicity and its independence is as contested as Tibetan independence would be. It’s definitely not completely the same, so I agree that might have been misleading but there are definitely parallels to consider.
3. As far as Tibet being too small and poor to be independent - in retrospect, that does sound a bit like propaganda. But in reality it could be true. This is a topic that I plan to think a lot on - not just about Tibet but about other similar areas around the world. On one hand, I think Tibet would have difficulty surviving in the world economy; on the other, maybe anything is better than their current plight and perhaps they can use their natural and religious resources to succeed in the same way that Bhutan does.
My initial thoughts are a weaning off period of increased autonomy. I’m not sure that would work, though. It sort of works with Catalonia but the Basques aren’t too keen on it. And China probably wouldn’t go for it since they’re pretty greedy with territory whatever their gain. See their strange relationship with Taiwan as one example and the ‘repatriation’ of Hong Kong as another.
Anyway, obviously this is a pretty complex issue and bears more thinking. I appreciate the comments. Any and all points of view are welcome because they educate and bring us closer to the truth.