China puts on face for the world as Olympics begin

The Olympics are underway in Beijing, with what no doubt was a spectacular opening ceremony. For the next 16 days the world (or at the very least this blogger) will sit glued to the television as the world's top athletes battle for guts and glory. The Athenians definitely knew what they were doing. 

But does the world know what China is doing? Really? Sure everyone knows China is a Communist country and most people have some idea of what that means. China's list of human rights violations - both with respect to its own people and others [insert African country of choice here] - is quite appalling, as is its foreign relations record quite generally, with few exceptions. But from my conversations with those not directly involved in researching China's domestic and/or foreign relations, few fully grasp what's at stake. 

An opinion piece in today's Wall Street Journal goes some way in shedding some light on the issues, concluding with a rather optimistic tone that the Olympics may in the long term herald in a freer China. In a somewhat less optimistic fashion, Human Rights Watch argues that "the Chinese government and IOC wasted a historic opportunity for reform." The New York-based Human Rights in China similarly issued a press release on the worsening human rights situation in China.  And in the recent edition of Foreign Affairs, Elizabeth Economy and Adam Segal write of China's embarrassing coming-out party, set against a background of poor environmental standards, increased pressure over Sudan and its poor record of accountability and transparency - just to name a few. The list goes on and on. 

Sadly, the China the world will see for the next sixteen days is not China, per se, but China as the CCP would like for it to appear. Open. Free. Strong. Dare I say it - Liberal. Ironically, this vision may be among the few things China and its critics agree on. A crucial difference, though, is the means by which to attain it. 

Nevertheless, human rights violations aside, the Olympics promise to bring much phenomenal competition and countless spectacular performances - both on and off the fields. I, for one, am very much looking forward to it. Human rights violations aside.

Noteworthy….

In my daily morning perusal through various blogs and website links, I came across the following project put out by New York-based Human Rights Watch:  China's Olympian Human Rights Challenges. Under the 'Reports' section, one can find a decently-sized collection of annual reports from 1996-2008 on issues ranging from state control of religion, Tibetan exiles, China's HIV/AIDS population and, of course, debate over human rights violations in the run-up to the Olympics. Definitely worth a look!

On a somewhat unrelated manner, the folks over at the World Bank's PSD blog have an interesting post on the place of supermarkets in spurring development. This, as commentary on Reardon and Gulati's recent policy brief, The Supermarket Revolution in Developing Countries. I wonder how many times the word "Wal-mart" appears in that one….

Chinese censor Olympics. Surprise? Anyone?

A front-page story of today's International Herald Tribune reports that:

"Since the Olympic Village press center opened Friday, reporters have been unable to access scores of Web pages — among them those that discuss Tibetan issues, Taiwanese independence, the violent crackdown on the protests in Tiananmen Square and the Web sites of Amnesty International, the BBC's Chinese-language news, Radio Free Asia and several Hong Kong newspapers known for their freewheeling political discourse"

As it turns out, earlier excitement over the 'free reporting' that was to allegedly occur during the Olympic Games was unwarranted: international journalists and spectators will be subject to the same blocks that China places on the Internet for its citizens. Fabulous.

Admittedly, I was among those who hoped the Olympics would open up the black-box that is China. Would, even in some small way, liberalize the country. From my time there and my correspondences with colleagues in Beijing and elsewhere, I've developed a distinct love of and fascination with the "awakened giant" and would like nothing more than for its citizens to enjoy the personal freedoms they rightly deserve. But, as more and more indiscretions surface, I can't help but wonder if Anuradha Amrutesh from Bangalore, India was right: "The Olympics should have never gone to China."

African-free Olympics?

According to a recent article in the Nigerian "This Day," it appears that the Beijing Olympics may have several fewer Africans than expected.

According the the article, Chinese embassies in Nigeria and other African states are making it difficult for Africans - including heads of state and sports federation leaders- to obtain the necessary documentation to travel to China for the event. Applicants are required to present evidence of ticket purchases, accommodation arrangements, and other pieces of information that some do not yet have or are unable to prove through paperwork. 

If this is indeed the case, such actions, coupled with the 11 July Chinese veto of a UN Security Council resolution to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe put China in a rather curious position vis-a-vis its African colleagues. Especially in the eyes of ordinary Africans, China is increasingly assuming the role of villain. For many Zimbabweans, for instance, the outlook is now one of "us" versus "them," where "them" means Mugabe and his Chinese cronies. 

When China first won the bid for the Olympics, there was much enthusiasm that the games would begin to change the face of Chinese policies. As the Telegraph's Richard Spencer observes, there is little sign of it so far.

The “Genocide Olympics:” Not China’s Alone?

Today's online issue of The Guardian had a rather interesting article on China's role in Darfur. In it, Patrick Smith argues that if we are to point fingers at the Chinese for their failings in Darfur, we should equally point fingers at Russia and the West. 

While the argument itself lacks any sort of novelty, it touches on a point that is worth recalling. I certainly do not care to condone China's Africa policy, as I find in it many faults, but I do think it behooves us to remember that the Chinese are not the only ones entangled with the Sudanese government. One need not look any further than France, Malaysia, Russia, and even the United States, to discover similar instances of government relations. Of course the nature of engagement of each state varies, but the point remains the same: they are all there. 

Last week Steven Spielberg withdrew as the artistic adviser to the upcoming Beijing Olympics on the grounds that he could not reconcile himself to aiding perpetrators of gross crimes against humanity (i.e. Darfur). According to Peter Apps, Spielberg's snub is a sign of things to come. Spielberg's decision is certainly noteworthy and a brilliant exercise of the kind of soft power that may ultimately impact on China's Darfur policy, but to expect this to bring about such profound changes as many hope is to engage in nothing but wishful thinking. 

So long as other states continue to maintain relations with Khartoum - in whatever capacity - it is highly unlikely that the Chinese will make any significant changes to their Darfur - and indeed African - policy. In discussions with my Chinese colleagues, I continuously encounter two comments on the Darfur issue: (1) China is not doing anything that is not being done by other international actors; (2) There is a difference between business and government. The businessmen in Sudan do business, they do not engage in government activity. Whether or not they believe the latter is open to debate, but it is the former comment that is most salient.

The Olympics will go on without Spielberg, even without the assistance of others should they withdraw. Moreover, the Olympics will be the most fantastic spectacle of "East meets West" and "East doesn't need/need to be like the West" propaganda the world has seen in some time. My brief visit to Beijing this past September convinced me of the fact.  If we follow Smith's argument to it's logical conclusion, however, it appears that the "Genocide Olympics" don't belong to China alone. If we accept the international doctrine of responsibility, then to some extent the burden of the "Genocide Olympics" falls on all of us. In our failure to effectively aid the people of Darfur we are all in some measure responsible. Some, of course, more than others. 

Teaching the Chinese to smile

The 2008 Beijing Olympics will indubitably be a sensational display of "East meets West" and a showcase of just how advanced and "Western" is the PRC. In the run-up to the Olympics, taxi drivers are learning to speak English, citizens are being taught not to spit and now are also apparently being taught how to smile. The unknowing Westerner will be welcomed into a cultured, developed Chinese state and perhaps naively led to believe that Chinese communism isn't so bad after all.

Yet upon reflection, the PRC's modernization campaign is perhaps the most pervasive of all types of communism: not only does it interfere with an individual's personal belongings, for instance, but also tells him or her how to feel and behave. Smile now. Don't spit. Sit up straight. What's worse is that citizens  incur fines if they are caught doing or not doing whatever it is the state tells them they ought or ought not to do. The PRC has become like a nagging mother whom it is impossible to shake. For all talk of progress, too, the recent modernization campaigns differ little from those of the 1950s (as documented in this 1950s anti-spitting video ) And that, I think, leaves little to smile about.