The Point

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: , , , ,

posted by Christopher at 11:39 p.m. | link | 0 comments

Friday, December 29, 2006

What to watch: 2007

Björk in snow (bjork.com/Erez Sabag)

Three things to watch in 2007:

Bj
örk's new album - I am waiting with great anticipation for her new record. Her last stand-alone album, Medúlla, successfully caught everyone listening by surprise, to say the least. I appreciate that she doesn't sing for the sake of reaching as many people as possible. Some people want to listen to her experimenting with making beats out of cards shuffling and throat singing; others do not. For those of us that do, so much the better, because she's a brilliant (if bizarre) artist through and through. Now she's apparently working on a hip-hop album of all things. How can you say no to this woman? She's insatiable. The best part? She's reportedly producing it with Timbaland. Yes yes yes.

Darfur and Jan Eliasson
- The genocide that wouldn't go away. Kofi Annan just appointed Jan Eliasson, former President of the United Nations General assembly and former Swedish foreign minister, as the Secretary-General's Special Envoy in Darfur. It's way past the point of humanitarian collapse. Aid agencies are pulling out after facing
'"unprecedented difficulties" because of military activity and direct violence against them.' Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir has conditionally accepted a joint UN-African Union peacekeeping force in the region, but has intimated the government may allow little more than logistical support from the UN troops, and only a few hundred of them at that (as opposed to at least 22 000 troops in the joint force that many many corners are saying are urgently needed).

It is an understatement to say that there is something of a conflict of interest here. Why on earth al-Bashir's government, who have been accused of complicity in the genocide themselves, should have the final say in whether UN forces are allowed into the region to bring an end to the slaughter... is simply beyond me. It's absurd. Let's see how closely Ban Ki-moon listens to Eliasson in the new year and whether the international community has the balls to finally act.

Huangbaiyu - On this little village rest the hopes of a nation. Sort of. Despite what the Kyoto Accord might imply, there can be no discussion of creating sustainable societies today without China and India, and the former is taking an ambitious step in a tiny community in Liaoning called Huangbaiyu. William McDonough is the co-author of Cradle-to-Cradle, a book about truly circular ways of living in a very nutritious way which you can expect to hear a lot more about here and which you should pick up now. He's also part of the China-US Centre for Sustainable Development, which recenty launched a project in Huangbaiyu to create more sustainable homes for the residents, taking into account the cradle-to-cradle concept of making things that are locally appropriate, use energy intelligently, and give net benefits to the environment they are part of. The problem? It seems no one asked the residents about the project.

Locals are complaining that the new homes have yards that are way too small to support the small home-based agriculture they depend on to supplement their income, and are far too expensive. So far, not a single one of the 42 homes built in the first phase of the project has any takers. Part of the problem is likely that the 'local partner' in the project, Dai Xiaolong, is the village's leader as well as a chief investor. An experienced businessman, he should be commended for pursuing environmental sustainability for his community for more than just altruistic reasons - after all, no company is going to invest in something for the benefit of society as a whole if it's not going to make them a profit. It seems the project has taken a series of bizarre turns, though. Only one house is solar-powered as planned, the building materials being used aren't at all what was originally envisaged, the houses are apparently being built with garages...

It reminds me, actually, of the lack of consideration of the needs of the actual residents that seems to be threatening the veneer of 'sustainability' over Edmonton's Downtown East plan. It will be well worth watching what happens in Huangbaiyu next year, because the number of fingers in this particular pie means what happens in Liaoning will likely help set the tone for other sustainable development projects in the Middle Kingdom.

Labels: , , ,

posted by Christopher at 2:05 p.m. | link | 0 comments

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Right to protect

Today, Africa Union (AU) leaders met in Addis Ababa to reaffirm that they will be pulling their troops out of the Darfur region this month after the Sudanese government refused to permit them to be replaced by UN peacekeeping forces. Sudan has rejected a UN resolution passed last week aimed at sending a 17 000 peacekeepers to the region to end violence, widely attributed to government support of the Janjaweed militia there, which has seen hundreds of thousands killed, millions displaced, and a huge number of women and other vulnerable peoples raped and brutally assaulted over the past several years. Khartoum has stated the AU will only be allowed to remain in Darfur if their mandate is extended beyond 30 September and not as part of a UN force, which it charges is challenging its right to national sovereignty.

UN Resolution 1706, which would have allowed UN forces to take over for the only 7 000 or so AU troops which have been trying to maintain peace in the vast western region of the country, was unanimously passed by the Security Council on August 31, with only three abstentions. Russia, China, and Qatar failed to vote on the resolution, citing concerns over the timing of its enforcement, which is being opposed by the Sudanese government. Instead, Sudan has offered to replace the AU troops with 10 000 members of its own army, a suggestion condemned by human rights groups monitoring the region.

Since the United Nations must have the support of the member nations to which it wishes to send peacekeeping troops, it remains unclear what further action it will pursue. It has been several years since reports began emerging of widespread human rights abuses against mainly 'black' African peoples in the region by the Arab-identifying Janjaweed militia, but action has been slow, when it has emerged at all, and numerous reports have cited increased violence since the government signed a peace agreement with one rebel group in the region in May.

Will the UN take advantage of recent movement to add the 'right to protect' to its mandate in cases of widespread humanitarian abuse? Canada convened the committee which recently suggested adding this responsibility to the duties of its member states, but it seems our own government lacks the moral leadership to take serious initative on enforcing this issue. Systematic violence against ethnic groups on a massive scale is not without precedent, and lessons from Rwanda and Cambodia should have taught the community of nations by now that immediate intervention is necessary to prevent an even greater humanitarian catastrophe.

What has happened to the right to protect? How can we show the people of Darfur there is some bite to our bark, some action coming behind all this rhetoric?

Labels: , ,

posted by Christopher at 12:49 a.m. | link | 0 comments
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.