Monday, July 28, 2008
On the lookout
You may enjoy this gem from our friends at passiveaggressivenotes.com:
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Strange Games
Human rights at the 08 Games... not so much.
Yeesh. Apologies for the delay. The hurricane of classes and exams has abated. Without further ado:
"Beijing Arrests Fat Chinese Children Ahead of Olympics"
BEIJING - As part of its urban beautification program ahead of the upcoming Olympic Games, the Chinese government has rounded up all the fat children in the city and deported them to a detention facility in the suburbs. The state newspaper Xinhua reported that “ China must present its very best image as an athletic and advanced nation,” quoting unnamed spokespersons. The removal of fat children from the view of visitors and press is seen as a crucial to maintaining “Olympic Spirit,” the article went on to say. Parents of the detained children, who were rounded up by police armed with non-lethal electrical stun devices in city-wide sweeps over the weekend, have been notified by mail and can pick up their children on September 1. Reports that the children will undergo nutritional and fitness re-education could not be confirmed at press time.Okay, obviously the writers over at NotTheNation.com have their tongues firmly placed in cheek with this bit. But it's true that Beijing has gone all out preparing for these games. I mean allll out. How many cities basically quadruple how long and useful their subway system is to host this show, and do it on time? Not many. How about building two national athletics arena more ambitious in scope and design than anything the country has ever seen, and with a high likelihood of not leaving behind a municipal disaster for the locals to clean up for decades to come? Literally unprecedented (if still so-so) accessibility of facilities being put in and training of employees to show respect and understand the needs of visitors with disabilities? A Great Leap Forward-esque level of nationalist fervour?
That last point there is the most revealing to me. Not just about these games but about modern China as a whole. Since the foundation of the People's Republic in 1949, the Chinese Communist Party has done a laudable job (if it's the kind of thing you're inclined to laud) of moving itself into the public consciousness as essentially synonymous with Chineseness. Unswerving allegiance to distant, authoritarian rulers has a rich and storied history in China; the Communist Party's place in the middle of this solar system of paternalism is in many ways just its modern manifestation. And they've certainly capitalized on the filial piety-glorifying legacy of Confucianism - Father knows best, or at least, Grandpa Deng and the gang do anyway.
Why is this relevant? In large part because it's as much a face-gaining event of unprecedented scale for the Party as much or moreso than it is for the citizens of China. Most people in Canada of my generation probably think of the massacre in Tiananmen Square in Beijing in 1989 when they think of this government. Older generations might remember the brutality of the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap forward more vividly. The picture's more complicated than this, but the connection is worth making. Especially when the question comes up of whether an international boycott is merited - be it in viewership, attendance of political leaders, or participation of athletes
The Communist Party today is just as oppressive, brutal and secretive as it was in 1989, if not moreso - albeit with better international PR. They've killed 'terrorist splittists' left and right this year in Xinjiang and Tibet, and are definitely responsible for propping up some pretty brutal regimes in Sudan, Burma, and other places where unsavoury governments commit similarly heinous crimes on their own citizens. It's absurd that the government and many many others are fooling themselves into thinking the Olympics aren't a political event. They might just be the most dramatic political event a country can host, short of an extraterrestrial landing or something.
The Communist Party is definitely banking on good publicity from a showy, expensive, tightly controlled games going off without a hitch - a long way from the images in the West, at least, of families in Mao suits riding bicycles down leafy avenues to their tiny brick homes where everyone's eating porridge for three meals a day in destitution for the good of the nation. So with all of that in mind, yes, a boycott is a good way to undermine the credibility of the regime, credibility they're desperately trying to drum up with this thing. It's a powerful political tool, although it would be moreso if the Canadian team, for example, just wasn't going, rather than trying to encourage a mass viewing boycott.
But on the other hand, Chinese people have invested a lot emotionally into the hard work of hosting a really incredible show - every city of any size you go to in China has had Olympic-related athletic events and memorabilia on sale for years already. The overwhelming majority of people there are expecting to gain a lot of face from hosting a well-organized games, showing off the lipstick of the Middle Kingdom as it were, with Beijing all rouged up and so on. And I know a lot of people over there find it hurtful, find it actually personally offensive that so many people in North America and Europe are calling for a boycott because they see it as essentially calling them bad hosts, and there is a legitimate beef there that it's pure hypocrisy for people from Canada to defend our right to host the games but not China's on the basis of their human rights record, when we have such an appalling history of brutal colonialist policies like residential schools in our own very recent past and continuing into the present, and our own litany of racist institutional acts like the Chinese headtax and the disenfranchisement of First Nations voters and the policies towards Africville in Halifax and so on and so on...
So are the Olympics the venue to stir shit up, and make it very very public that the Chinese government is doing some monstrous things to its own people and propping up other regimes behaving horrendously in their corners of the world? I think so, definitely. The Globe and Mail has reported just this weekend (for real) on the increasingly authoritarian social and political controls being wound up in the run-up to these games. Some had anticipated this event might be the beginning of a road toward greater respect for human rights and public accountability at home and abroad. there's been reactionary crackdown after crackdown, and things are likely to get worse before they get better. The riots this month in Guizhou province's Weng'an county being a case in point, over the apparently cavalier dismissal of local Li Shufen's suspected murder and rape - by a group of men who may have included one relative of a local police officer - as nothing more than a suicide. The initial response to the crowds of 30 000 trying to burn down the station over allegations of corruption?
Arresting 300 protesters, asserting that 'the family were "too emotionally unstable" to accept the results of the "careful investigation according to the law"'
and accusing
'gangsters and others with ulterior motives of whipping up local residents' anger, warning that such offenders faced strict punishment.'
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, Human Rights First are doing exactly the right things making people aware of China blocking even the simplest progress on human rights like sanctions on the government in Zimbabwe over the sham elections and the violence Mugabe is pushing over there. Using the intense lens on Beijing as a platform for this kind of stuff is brilliant.
But a boycott on watching them?
The cynic in me says get real, this is going to be a fricking amazing show and I can't imagine who would want to miss it. The idealist in me says yes, it would make the government lose face, which it should, in buckets. But then again, it also risks offending 1.3 billion people who feel understandably a bit sensitive about the whole thing, and it's them I think we should be engaging with to get them to push for better government for themselves, greater respect for human rights, and for better foreign policy from the Chinese government abroad.
Last year, my friend's dad and I got into an argument over this idea that the rest of the world should be afraid of the 'peaceful rise' of the People's Republic. It's largely just fearmongering from those scared of losing a monopoly on power in the American de facto empire, but he was also arguing that even if China became a superpower economically, politically and militarily on the same scale as the US, at least they wouldn't be going around acting like the World Police telling everybody what to do. Except, that just like the officials in Weng'an, in many countries - by its action and inaction - China is already doing so. For all of our sake, this is an opportunity worth using at the very least shame the government into doing so with more humanity.
Labels: burma, china, human rights, politics, sudan
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Wait for it...
Zig when you zag
Tomorrow: Since so many people have asked and I want to explain my take on the whole thing, my rundown on the Beijing Olympics. You're all on pins and needles with anticipation. I know.
Labels: china
Friday, July 11, 2008
Frère fier
My dear friend Aurélie, whom I think I may rightly consider a sister at heart, is from Québec - Québec, the city with the Plains of Abraham and the world's best poutine (Chez Ashton, anybody?), that is. If I recall, my entire experience of the Plains of Abraham, the place where one of the most important battles in Canadian history happened, was watching a few kids toboggan down it and get a facefull of snow at full speed. If I recall correctly.
This month, of course, was the city's 400th anniversary, marking exactly four centuries since Samuel de Champlain (who, incidentally, made his way up the waterways all the way to Peterborough as well) stuck a sharp thing in the dirt and declared it the property of France. I'd say they've come a long way since sharp things in the dirt. And I just wanted everybody to see that Auré represented us Canada World Youthers in the classiest way possible at a ceremony CWY-JCM hosted to mark the occasion with the coolest woman in Canada in attendance, Michaëlle Jean.
That's right, guess who's ear is in that picture. Jealous? Thought so.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Going the distance
'Stringent mitigation will cost the world no more than 3 percent of global GDP in 2030.' - Nobel Prize-winning environmentalist R K Pachauri (link to BBC interview)
I just received my semi-annual newsletter from CO2RE, Edmonton's lacklustre (but well-intentioned) attempt to push ways to reduce individual carbon dioxide emissions. They're offering a furnace retrofit rebate of 500 bucks, and up to 2000 for low-income households. You can even get a coupon for a free first month from our residential green power supplier, bullfrog power. It's a step.
But it's not enough, for a lot of reasons. The most important:
1. It's too gentle. Edmontonians don't need to be gently led by the hand, they need to be pushed.
2. Its stated goals of 20 percent reductions in the city by 2020 are probably not enough to do any major damage one way or another.
3. It only addresses individual greenhouse gas emissions, not systemic problems like a coal and natural gas-dependent energy infrastructure or an economy fueled by Athabasca bitumen.
It's been said time and time again, but it still makes a lot of us uncomfortable (sometimes angrily so), so I'll say it again: addressing climate change is going to require changing the way we live. Yet it seems as though a relatively small amount of action will help head off the worst crises, and save us time, money, and lives in the effort. So why aren't we taking those steps?
Somewhat mysteriously, our local rag the Peterborough Examiner, not exactly a bastion of earth-shattering journalism these days (though, incredibly, it was once edited by Robertson Davies), carries a semi-regular column by David Suzuki. A couple weeks ago, he was discussing our continuing, daily failure to really step up to the plate right now and take action that will move us away from a carbon-intensive society to a carbon-neutral one. Dion and the Green Party's carbon tax proposals are one strategy, and one that's been proven effective in Scandinavian countries. Refusing to allow new projects in the tar sands up in Athabasca is another. Moving immediately away from fossil-fuel dependent methods of growing crops (corn-based ethanol, anyone?) would be a modicum closer to good sense, I think.
So, Grandpa Suzuki says, why not act now? Why not take demonstrative, immediate action to reduce our GHG emissions? It's true that the scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are only 90% sure that humans are responsible for the rapid global climate shifts we're seeing right now. If a nurse told us it was 90% certain that something we were eating could kill us, would we still take the risk?
This is the question Harper and the other leaders of the G8 have failed to answer adequately at this week's summit in Japan. Committing to an unambitious long-term goal of 50% GHG emission reductions by 2050 with no short-term commitments and no binding agreements - should we be surprised that the 'developing' countries like China, India, Indonesia, and South Africa that joined the summit yesterday laughed them off? And what was the year from which they wanted to reduce those emissions anyway? It's true that in Canada our overall percentage of global carbon emissions is only a few percent; while wildly high for our proportion of the global population, yes, you can make this ludicrous argument that our individual reductions in emissions will not put much of a dent in the global picture. As Raj Patel says, China just ate that for breakfast. India just ate that for lunch.
But without demonstrating leadership on our own behalf, and making real, bold commitments to help countries with much much fewer economic resources to make shifts toward sustainable societies, why should we be at all surprised that the big emitters - the US, China, India, and on and on - don't take us seriously anymore when we say we want to help address the problems? It's time to pony up. And it's time to have a more serious debate than we've shown we're up to. And moreover, as R K Pachauri says in the interview above, it's time to move from discussions to decisions.
Friday, July 04, 2008
A root of evanescence
Sometimes a thought can be better expressed in poetry than in prose. Tell me what you think of this poem about Sankofa by my fellow blogger Fenix.
if it was important enough to be taken from you
then it is important enough to be fought for
if you've lost sight of your legacy
and you can't place your roots
if you know what was taken from you
Return and get it.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.