I'm not anti China

Blair Mulholland has an excellent post on how those protesting against human rights abuses in China are NOT anti-Chinese. In response to a NZ Herald report of a planned demonstration by supporters of the Chinese Communist Party authoritarian regime he said:
.
"I support China; a China with free speech, freedom of the press, and freed political prisoners, that I will also be going to Aotea Square - to protest against these people and their support for dictatorship. "
.
Good for him! I encourage all of you, across the political spectrum who believe in these fundamental rights to join him. If China was free, the Beijing Olympics would be a cause for celebration around the world - like the Olympics were in Athens, Sydney, Atlanta, Barcelona and Seoul.
.
The Chinese Communist regime is using its domestic media monopoly (protected literally at gunpoint) and substantial wealth to spread utter lies that the protests are some sort of racist anti-Chinese attack. It claims that people in the West are jealous of China's economic success, which is laughable given that China still has an average GDP per capita a fraction of that of developed countries. After all, the Olympics were held in Seoul, South Korea and people didn't protest that - because South Korea had, finally, thrown off its authoritarian regimes and dictators.

The Daily Telegraph reports on websites set up in China to boycott Western companies like KFC and Carrefour (French supermarket chain), and the absurd "anti-CNN" site. Given CNN does not broadcast freely in China (the government there blanks out anything it doesn't like) it is bizarre for anyone to claim that Chinese people in China actually can know what the Western media says. Free speech is unknown in China as is a free press, but hey it's "anti-China" to expect the Chinese people to have these privileges.

You'll notice the anti-CNN website is itself rather bigoted because those who disagree are "ignorant Westerners", a post it attacked was quite reasonable in pitying those who only get the Chinese government side of the story. He also noted, imagine if Chinese created an anti-CCTV website in China. No. The naive are being led astray, and the mighty forces of those who have a vested interest in the Chinese Communist Party are fighting free speech.

Chinese Ambassador to the UK Fu Ying continues the claim that China is being demonised by the Western media. No. India doesn't get demonised, and it is big, a nuclear power and growing fast. That is because Indians have free speech, free press and liberal democracy. She reasonably said:

"Coming to China to report bad stories may not be welcomed but would not be stopped, as China is committed to opening up.

China is far from perfect and it is trying to address the many problems that do exist. It would be helpful to the credibility of the Western media if the issues they care and write about are of today's China, not of the long-gone past."

Fine. How about letting the Chinese people speak up? How about letting them express openly their concerns about government policy, about corruption, about crime, about pollution? How about NOT executing or imprisoning people who disagree with you?

China has gone a long way since the dark days of Mao - I endorse it and I like China. China has reincorporated Hong Kong and it remains a fantastic example of what China could be. Taiwan itself is very much also a great example. You see civilisation does NOT mean using force against those who disagree with you. Civilisation does NOT mean providing aid, trade and support for those who murder (regimes in Burma, Sudan and Zimbabwe being some of China's friends with much blood on their hands).

That's what I want to see from China. I want a China as a world power that is open, that has a vibrant free press and media, that unleashes the dynamism of the Chinese people to disagree, argue and be open among themselves. To do this, the Communist Party has to accept criticism, it has to separate the state and the party, and it has to fight hard to make the Chinese judicial system independent.
.
Is someone who wants this for China anti-Chinese? Sadly even CNN still reports some protests as being "anti-Chinese". Is it any surprise that when that phrase is used that Chinese people get upset?
.
I hope those who protest in Australia do not just protest for Tibet, as important as that is - this should be about China's own domestic freedoms and China's support for murderous regimes elsewhere. I also hope that Chinese who don't support the Communist regime are not scared by those waving People's Republic of China flags.
.
Remember when those who say they are pro-Chinese wave the flag of Chairman Mao, they are waving the flag that represents over half a century of political repression, torture and murder. The Communist Party is not China.

Why the media is playing into the Chinese government's hands

It is difficult to determine how language develops when stories are covered by the media, but perhaps too many underestimate its importance. It is particularly important with the coverage of the Olympic torch relay, because whilst protestors are typically concerned about human rights, and the Chinese government's oppression of political opposition and free speech, the news media has characterised the protests as being "pro-Tibet". In smaller numbers have been those waving the flag of the People's Republic of China, and have been called "pro-China". The implications of these two phrases should not be underestimated.

.

The Beijing government is milking this coverage for all it can, playing the nationalist card. This card is particularly strong for Chinese, because, unlike Marxism (which has little genuine currency left in China or amongst Chinese worldwide), focusing on Chinese identity and implying that those who protest the games are "anti-Chinese" can foment a great deal of animosity. Yet I doubt if any of those protesting the games are anti-Chinese at all.

.

The protestors against the Beijing Olympics are variably in favour of greater political freedom in Tibet, some believe in Tibetan independence, but the overwhelming message is that the Beijing government should provide some outlet for Tibetan grievances to be heard or at least expressed. The phrase "pro-Tibet" implies the Chinese government is "anti-Tibet", which is slightly silly. The Chinese government happily hangs onto Tibet for a whole host of reasons.

.

The truth is more that the Chinese government is "pro Han Chinese" and, like most cultures around the world, does apply an element of cultural arrogance and patronising attitude towards ethnic minorities. In short, Tibetans should be damned pleased the Chinese Communist Party "liberated" China and has given them electricity, roads, hospitals etc. That is what Beijing is trying to sell, and with some justification argues against Tibetan Buddhist feudalism. Beijing's line on Tibet needs to be understood clearly for what it is:

.

- Tibet is part of China, always has been. If you argue for Tibetan independence the fear is that China will splinter as CNN reports Hu Jintao saying. Don't forget China was far from unified before 1949, and a China that is broken up is weaker than a unified one, well for those in power in Beijing anyway.

- Beijing believes, quite strongly, that other powers (Japan, USA and other neighbours) would support the disintegration of China, purely for geopolitical reasons. This is due to an inherent xenophobic view of the world burnished into Chinese political thought based upon experience with colonialism in Shanghai and Hong Kong and Japan's invasion and occupation. Beijing and the Communist Party in particular strongly believes the rest of the world fears and opposes a strong China, and that supporting Tibetan independence is one way of achieving this (the aggressive attitude towards Taiwanese independence has a similar motive).

- Beijing believes, with a grossly patronising attitude, that Tibetans should be grateful for rule from Beijing and what has been materially delivered to that rather cauterised province (historic Tibet has had a good chunk of its land incorporated into Qinghai province). As Tibetans are arguably materially better off than they were in the 1950s (which frankly wouldn't be very hard), they should be grateful and stop ruining a sporting event that China as a whole should be proud of. They want Tibetans to be conscious they are part of the Chinese nation, and isn't that a great thing.

.

So Beijing treats protests about Tibet as being a foreign inspired plot to weaken China, and its media is full of this line. Calling the protests "anti-Chinese" plays into its hands. This is why those who protest should acknowledge what the real problem is and the real solution - the problem is not China governing Tibet, it is its governance. That problem isn't just Tibet, it is all of China barring Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan.

.

The Chinese state media, which today has global TV and radio broadcasts, and multiple websites, is constantly portraying the protests as being "anti-China", and the lackeys who wave the blood stained flag of the People's Republic as "pro-China". Western media should abandon such terminology - nobody is protesting against the "Chinese nation" or "Chinese people", they are protesting the one-party state authoritarian rule of the Communist Party of China. Unfortunately the protestors have rarely made that clear and coverage of them has not helped.

.

This coverage is why some protests have started emerging in the West that are "pro-Chinese".

.

So I call about protestors to abandon the calls for Tibetan independence. The call should be for all of China to have fundamental political freedoms. This means freedom of speech including freedom of the press, and for prisoners of conscience to be released. It is about allowing criticism of the Communist Party. It should also be about China stopping its support for Myanmar and Sudan's fellow dictatorships, and its sending of North Korean refugees back to almost certain death in gulags. However, one thing at a time.

.

The message needs to be loud and clear. There would not be protests against the Beijing Olympics if China's government opened dialogue with the Dalai Lama, opened up Tibet to the sort of freedom of speech that exists in Hong Kong, and stop arresting political prisoners. China is the third largest economy in the world if you don't count the EU as one entity, there is much to be proud of in raising its peasant economy to an industrial power - but in the 21st century many fear the Olympics will shine a light on all of this, while ignoring the executions, torture and oppression by those who rule China against those who oppose what is done to them. This message is blurred by those who paint this as being "pro-Tibet" and "pro-China". Nobody is anti Tibet or anti China, and those who are "pro-China" are actually pro Chinese Communist Party rule. If this was 1936 and Germans were flying Nazi flags would they be pro-German or pro-Nazi? China's government and many Chinese may not think there are parallels with the 1936 Olympics - but while China is ruled by a single party that executes those who challenge its rule, it is difficult to avoid the link. Not since Moscow in 1980 have the Olympics been held in a dictatorship.

.

In an age of soundbite news reporting is it too much to ask for simple slogans like "pro-Tibet" and "Pro-China" to be done away with and instead call them "Tibetan independence" or "human rights campaigners", and "pro Chinese government". Being anti Chinese Communist Party is not anti Chinese.

Should the Olympics be boycotted?

Both the libertarian blog Pacific Empire and semi-libertarian blog Mulholland Drive are endorsing a boycott of the Beijing Olympics. Blair Mulholland explains why:
.

• Free speech and freedom of the press is severely restricted and censored;
• Religion must be sanctioned by the state or adherents are persecuted; and
• Huge numbers of political and religious dissidents languish in Chinese prisons

He calls for China to simply release all prisoners of conscience and to guarantee freedom of speech and freedom of the press. All perfectly reasonable. The boycott he calls for is for athletes to choose themselves, not for government to impose it.
.
So should they? It has been a while since an Olympic Games has suffered from widespread boycotts. Athens, Sydney, Atlanta and Barcelona were all games held in free liberal democracies with all such rights, as will London.
.
The Seoul Olympics in 1988 were the last games during the Cold War, but partly catalysed the democratisation of South Korea. When South Korea won the right to the games in 1981, it was under a military dictatorship, but in 1987 it had its first fully democratic presidential elections and despite North Korea demanding a boycott, only Cuba, Ethiopia and Nicaragua joined the boycott. Since the Seoul Olympics, freedom of the press and vigorous democratic elections have been the hallmark of South Korea. However, China is not on the cusp of becoming free, it is not South Korea 20 years ago.
.
The LA Olympics in 1984 were boycotted by the Warsaw Pact, but the 1980 Moscow Olympics were meant to be a propaganda triumph. This failed miserably not least because of the almost universal Western boycott in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

.

Now in 2008, the Olympic torch ceremony has been a focus for protests in London and Paris. Disturbingly though, the coverage has talked about "anti-China" and "pro-Tibet" protests - I doubt they are either.

.

Who is anti-China? Well besides many in Japan, Korea, Vietnam and others from neighbouring states who harbour the fear and the latent racism that is widespread outside Western civilisation, few indeed. I am not. I am pleased China is growing, pleased that freedoms in China have grown with it and would like nothing less than for the people of China to simply have some fundamental freedoms.

.

Simply being able to criticise the government, have a free and open press, and a state that is accountable, rather than being an extension of the Communist Party. I care less about China being a liberal democracy than I care about the right to free speech, for political prisoners to be freed, and for those who govern China being accountable before the law. It is about China growing up.

.

However, those who govern China are fomenting nationalist hatred that is seen on the China Daily forums that what the protests are about are about criticising and humiliating China. They are not - they are about rejecting the bloodshed, the repression and the unwillingness of China's one party state to be accountable or even honest about what it does. To me China is not what the Communist Party, which in its darkest period was responsible for tens of millions of Chinese starving and being slaughtered, says it is - it is about a people who are resourceful, hard working and creative.

.

Tibet is almost a sideshow, but represents what is wrong with the Chinese regime - it tolerates no dissent, it doesn't allow free and frank debate about government in Tibet, or criticism of what it does. Sadly this means that when Tibetans riot, and attack innocent local Chinese, it becomes a "them and us" story - some choose to unquestionably support the Tibetan protestors, others the Chinese - the truth is that neither are angels, but it is encumbent upon the Chinese Communist Party led regime to not suppress information and not suppress free speech there. i see no reason to be "pro-Tibet" anymore than being "anti-China", and don't believe that a Tibetan Buddhist theocracy is where it should be heading.

.

China has a better model. It's called Hong Kong.

.

You'd be hard pressed to find anywhere in the world with more individual freedom than Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, there is a lively free press, with private property rights, independent judiciary and freedom to do business. Art and culture thrive in diversity, and this is all in spite of over ten years of oversight from Beijing. Hong Kong doesn't have liberal democracy, but it is a free society, has low levels of corruption and reasonably high accountability for politicians and bureaucracy. Most importantly, Beijing has left it pretty much well alone. The truth is that in the last ten years Mainland China has been slowly moving towards the freedoms of Hong Kong, not Hong Kong moving backwards - albeit that China has a long long way to go.

.

The key questions are this - is it positive for freedom and individual rights in China for the Olympics to be hosted there and a spotlight to be turned on China? and are the Olympics a celebration of China's economic and technological modernisation or a celebration of its one party authoritarian state?

.

The answer to the first question is yes. It is yes because the Chinese regime can't turn the screws too much while the world watches, for fear that it encourages more protests, more scrutiny and more attention about what it doesn't do well. It is already hurting and straining relations. If it were not for the Olympics then Chinese human rights abuses would be ignored, as they largely have been since Tiananmen Square. Unfortunately the day after the Olympics is likely to be painful for those who dare to express dissent in China in the run up to it. However in the lead up, and at the time Chinese officials will be confronted with questions.

.

The second question is more delicate, as the truth is it will be both. China has much to celebrate in its modernisation, the long journey from the murderous Maoist state which starved and shouted at its people, to the market based authoritarian state where, by and large, people can get on with their lives as long as they don't challenge the state, or get in the way of the groaning leviathan. Standards of living have soared enormously, all because of free market capitalism - although China's legal and banking systems are at best shaky and antiquated.

.

Meanwhile, political power continues to come from a barrel of a gun. The Communist Party's sphere of influence has steadily eroded. China is not the starving Police State of North Korea, but is no bastion of open debate. Political dissension in China is expressed behind closed doors within the Communist Party, and to a limited extent at the local level where some criticism is allowed. Meanwhile some within the Party use its siamese twin like linkage with the state to enrich themselves - with little accountability, except from enemies who dob them in for whatever reason. Let's face it, the Chinese state is authoritarian, corrupt and brutal.

.

The Chinese regime would use the Olympics to showcase China, and undoubtedly many Chinese in China would be proud to be in the Olympic host country. One argument is that this would solidify support for Communist party rule, but what if there was a boycott, would this weaken such rule?

.

A state boycott would not - the Chinese regime would turn in on itself, would make racist claims that countries boycotting are "anti-Chinese". If China does not engage in a brutal suppression of dissent in the run up to the games (and the situation in Tibet is not of the scale of Tiananmen Square), then states should not now announce a boycott. A boycott should have been clear when China won the rights to host the games. To posture now in the final year, in the absence of any major change in circumstances is simply to posture.

.

Yes I know some think Tibet represents that - but it doesn't. None of the countries posturing about Tibet recognise it has any right to independence. Tibet has been subject to far more repression in the past, yet the world was largely silent. China is under pressure to be restrained in Tibet, but how it acts there is little different to how it acts elsewhere - it's just that the Dalai Lama exists for Tibet, no similar spokesperson exists for people oppressed in other provinces.

.

However, none of this should hinder the absolute right of individual athletes and politicians to boycott the games to express opposition to China's lack of individual freedom. My own view is that athletes that value such freedoms should not go (with the added benefit that they avoid breathing the toxic swill of Beijing smog), and neither should politicians. Those politicians who do go should take the chance to express concern about China's lack of political freedom.

.

In that sense if the Olympics is held, has some politicians boycotting loudly, some attending and expressing support for individual rights and many athletes boycotting, then two things will have happened. China will be in the spotlight - much of what is good will be seen, and some of what is wrong will be seen too - and those in charge know this. So for that I support those who individually choose to boycott the games purely to support the rights to free speech and political dissent, and for freedom for those arrested and imprisoned for such offences. I don't support those who simply call for "Free Tibet", as all of China should be free.

.

In fact a better campaign would be to extend the freedoms of Hong Kong to all of China - but since there isn't liberal democracy in Hong Kong, many of those protesting wont see the value in that. However, the longer Hong Kong succeeds and is seen to succeed, the more the rest of China can appreciate that it is the way to go - because the most important thing isn't elections, it is freedom.

Gordon Brown to meet Dalai Lama, would Helen now?

Good for him, he has told the Chinese PM Wen Jiabao that he will meet the Dalai Lama when he visits London in May. Not only that the Chinese PM has said he would meet the Dalai Lama as long as he renounces violence (which appears to hardly be an issue) and does not call for Tibetan independence (which he has not lately, simply requesting the same autonomy Hong Kong has). The Chinese reaction to the proposed meeting has not been hostile.

.

The British PM's meeting with be a formal one, not the Helen Clark "happen to be at the airport" meeting at Brisbane airport last year which she anxiously said "wasn't planned" and "because one doesn't know whether people are going to be in the lounge, or what time other passengers are boarded". They happened to be on the same flight from Brisbane to Sydney. Clark, understandably was in business class, the Dalai Lama in economy, but Qantas granted him lounge access at Brisbane which allowed the meeting to occur. Remarkable that Qantas could do what Helen Clark wouldn't - because she undoubtedly could have invited him as a guest (I fully expect she is a Qantas Gold frequent flyer).

.

This meeting will undoubtedly raise the pressure for the Chinese PM to actually meet the Dalai Lama. Helen Clark on the other hand has no backbone at all on this.

So what is happening in Tibet?

Undoubtedly the Chinese government is tackling dissent with its usual ruthlessness. David Farrar notes pointedly how Helen Clark is treating both the Chinese government and Tibetan protestors with moral equivalency:

.

“The Government is concerned at the reports of violence and is trying to obtain more accurate information. It calls on all sides to exercise restraint.”- Prime Minister Helen Clark

.

It could have come from China's official Xinhua news agency commenting on any foreign trouble.

.

However, it is important to note that the protesters are not angels. Some are targeting any Han Chinese they see. James Miles of the Economist is the only foreign correspondent legally allowed to be in Lhasa reports he saw:

.

crowds hurling chunks of concrete at the numerous small shops run by ethnic Chinese lining the streets of the city’s old Tibetan quarter. They threw them too at those Chinese caught on the streets—a boy on a bicycle, taxis (whose drivers are often Chinese) and even a bus.

.

As your correspondent spoke to a monk in the backroom of a monastery, a teenage boy rushed in and prostrated himself before him. He was a member of China’s ethnic-Han majority, terrified of the mobs outside. The monk helped him to hide.

.

However, it is NOT an orchestrated foreign conspiracy that is "anti-Chinese", despite the hysterical claims of the Chinese government. Tibetans deserve freedom of speech. Until they have this, China has no moral authority. Without the right to criticise government and hold it to account, it is simply fascism.

.

However, the condemnations from the New Zealand government, the one that so claimed the moral highground on disarmament and Iraq - are so absent.

The world watches Tibet

How much blood will China spill in advance of the Beijing Olympics?

2008 for China was meant to be a year to celebrate. Celebrate pride in extraordinary levels of economic development, and increases in standards of living for most people in China. China's coming of age, being the third biggest economy in the world (behind the USA and Japan) should see the Olympics being a showcase of a modern China, with pride.

China has faced a couple of challenges so far. One, regarding its foreign policy in Sudan, has moved somewhat. Another, is the heavy pollution remaining in Beijing - which bodes poorly for the Olympics.

but now it is Tibet. However, the primary issue for Tibet is not so much independence, which even the Dalai Lama does not seek now, but the treatment of Tibetans. The Dalai Lama seeks the same special status as Hong Kong, which would, of course, be a tremendous advancement. Sadly Tibetans face the restrictions on free speech, racism of the Han Chinese, and the fascism and corruption of the Communist Party run state that is found throughout China. Tibetans should have the right to oppose those governing them, to highlight abuses and corruption, and to be treated equally as Han Chinese by the state.

So China's Communist Party led government is trying to balance between suppressing what it sees as unacceptable dissent and challenges to its rule, and not appearing to be bloodthirsty.

China knows only too well that if it attempts another Tiananmen Square type massacre it risks boycotts of the Olympics, if not at the official level at least by individual athletes. The loss of face would be considerable. However, the West also knows the risks of offending China. Burma is easy - it is small, and can be boycotted and protested against with little cost. China is big, and it can do whatever it likes, knowing it is too valuable to too many countries to offend it.

The Daily Telegraph is carrying images of the protests, as Tibetan protestors attack Chinese premises. Many Tibetans are incensed at the Chinese takeover of the province, as Chinese are offered considerable incentives to relocate.

China will be restrained till it can take no more, as it has shown it is very willing to oppress when the rule of the bullies in the Communist Party seems threatened. If it does, then it is time to send China a message - you cannot aspire to be a global power and treat your citizens with impunity. It is not civilised.

The Communist Party and its handmaidens, the "People's Liberation Army" are fascist bullies - they seek only to tell their people what to do, push them around, arresting and executing if they get in the way. China deserves better, but for now China should consider what it has done in Hong Kong and Macau. Both regions of China now have freedoms that are unrivalled in many of China's neighbours - Tibet could be the same.

If the Communist Party set Tibet free it would suddenly dissipate an enormous amount of criticism, but at the risk of protests appearing elsewhere in China. If the killing and arrests continue, then Beijing does not deserve to host the games - it should be boycotted. The Olympics are about friendship, sport and peaceful interaction - the Chinese Communist Party led regime lies to its own people and the world, while spilling blood. That is not a fit venue for the Olympics.