Should your country boycott the Olympics?

[Bosh]

The Chinese government's treatment of North Korean refugees is despicable (arresting them and sending them back to North Korea when there's other countries willing to take them). Any other sort of evil is water over the damn as far as I'm concerned. I try to have as little to do with China as possible and am all for any sort of boycott...

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Re: Should your country boycott the Olympics?

Originally posted by Lancer
Free Tibet!

boycott is so 1980's style

if you want to do something about Tibet, invade and Free Tibet from oppression

[TCO]

Land war in Asia. Seriously. I think we could take the Chinese. We love and are good at audacious warfare. Occupation sucks. But just rippping in there...we rawk.

[MOBIUS]

The games were given to China for political reasons. They haven't held up their end of the bargain.

Ergo, a boycott is entirely reasonable - if only to protect the health of the athletes!:gasmaske:

[MOBIUS]

But then again, I despise China more than the US and Israel put together...

[Alinestra Covelia]

I think the games should be allowed to go ahead. There have been some comparisons to the Berlin games, but I think that comparison is not valid in this situation. Nazi Germany, as events came to show, had little interest in peaceful coexistence with its neighbors, and within a few short years had forcibly attempted to impose its beliefs on the rest of the world. China today is fast abandoning its socialist roots and is desperately scrambling for a place in the capitalistic world order, hence its eagerness to be ranked in the WTO (and even to assume all the logistical acclimatization problems that entails). The Games are as much as source of pride for the average Chinese citizen as they are for any participating athlete, and the benefits accrue to all participants - hardly exclusive to the Chinese government.

Right now China's a country emerging from a very tumultuous century, with foreign occupation and domestic misrule both legendary within living memory, and it's starting to normalize with the rest of the world. It's still got a ways to go, and it's going to have to seriously rethink several of its policies. But at this point multilateral engagement is still going to be the most effective way of causing that change. This was the stance taken since Nixon's visit, and it endured through the first Bush administration, which recognized that even with the huge step back in 1989 and the Tiananmen crackdown, trade with China was still a better mechanism than cutting ties. (A complete severance could have led to a country as paranoid, embittered, and dysfunctional as North Korea is today... only with fully functioning nuclear weapons and 1.3 billion hostile citizens.) The lifting of trade tariffs through the Most Favored Nation endured through the Clinton administration and the current Bush administration, despite occasional incidents and rhetoric on both sides.

Trade has helped the Chinese government abandon its hardline Maoist stance, lifted millions of Chinese citizens out of poverty, and has allowed the central government to recognize that its best interests lie with normalizing relations as much as possible. Serious missteps like what's happening in Tibet should indeed draw concern from the global community, but the solution should be to keep the channels of communication open. You already have heated debate within China's liberals and academics about the government's policies towards Tibet and how to correct it. If foreign nations cut ties harshly with the Chinese government, it will fuel a backlash of nationalist or protectionist sentiment, making it that much harder for liberals and academics within China to have their voices heard.

Some of the problems happening are simply the result of bad policy, and they'll have to rethink that. But many of the issues that Westerners have with the Chinese government also stem from cultural differences. You're talking about a civilization that has spent most of its existence as a centralized authoritarian system, at various times imposing order over restive border regions, and with a core structure of Confucian values that have stressed one's place in a hierarchy of responsibilities and duties - rather than the Enlightenment-era structure of personal freedoms and liberties. Personal freedoms such as religion, speech, and electing one's ruler that the West achieved long ago are still relatively new concepts to the Chinese - who are even now borrowing and testing out legal structures that the West has long been using, like intellectual property rights, real property rights, and contract laws. And they have a significant way to go before they are fully functional too, as anybody familiar with the systemic guanxi (personal relations) and gift-giving culture can attest.

This isn't meant as an excuse for the situation on the ground, but it is meant as an explanation, and a simplistic unilateral condemnation like a boycott without understanding will merely serve to alienate the nation and fan nationalism domestically.

There's going to be birthing pains all round, and not all of it is going to be attributable to the Chinese people generally or the Communist Party specifically. Let the games go ahead, let China know it has a seat at the discussion table, and continue the dialog that's been producing results, sometimes fitfully, sometimes steadily.

(I'm working on two papers about the Chinese legal system for law school: one about judicial corruption and conflicts of interests, and the other about how foreign corporations going to China can adapt and employ ethical codes of behavior to the Chinese cultural background. I've finished a decent draft of the latter and I'm hoping to do the same for the former. If anybody's interested I can post them online or email them when they're done.)

[DaShi]

Ali, I'd love to read them, when you've finished.

[TCO]

http://www.makingtheolympics.com/guest/

[DarkCloud]

Ben,

Sorry that it has taken so long to respond:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Koreans value stability and see Christianity as a part of of stability, so it's not enough to say that suspicion of religion is a reaction to colonialism. It's a facile assessment.

Perhaps, but perhaps not. Missionaries were active in anti-government activities in the past, and they can excite emotions and mobilize the people. If there is one thing that the chinese government cannot stand it is a different view or dissent on the right way of doing something.

And once again, the Taiping rebellion isn't seen as necessariily indigenous, it is seen by at least some as encouraged by the Christians- which puts it on par with the Moslem fundamentalist terrorists. The Chinese have a long memory.

And admittedly, they don't fully understand Christianity.

On another note, I would rather not derail this discussion here, but although Christianity preaches a message of peace- ideas like Liberation Theology, and even the ancient Crusades, or more recently the Rwandan Genocide (in a deeply religious society) clearly demonstrate how easily Christians can kill. It's not facile to assume that Christians are destabilizing.

What concepts does a nationalist Chinese republic touch upon? I don't believe the republicans inside China would see their brothers abroad as enemies, rather as kindred.

I think you might misunderstand- the nationalists inside china aren't the "nationalist" party. They are for a greater china- which would include your Tibet, and Xinjiang Province, and Taiwan, and Singapore, and they claim sea-rights out over 1000 miles from the shore, far beyond that guaranteed by international agreements. Their lines of claim run right up to the 100 mile sovereign zones of the Philippines and Indonesia.

They claim senaku-diaoyu... and remember, it was individuals who landed there, and not the government- who almost initiated an international incident.

Admittedly, the Taiwanese people also landed there- but they claimed it in the name of Taiwan, not a greater China.

So a good communism is better then a good republic? All this says is that good communism is better then a bad republic.

China isn't communist first off. The communist party is a status quo party. They want economic development and don't want to screw up the country. A nationalist government might be willing to take risks to hurt their economy in the pursuit of irredentist claims, and in the pursuit of regional hegemony.

I'm not talking liberation theology. I'm talking about simple concepts like love your neighbour, and do good to the one who attacks you. These ARE political, in the sense that they offer instruction on how people should act with one another.

Then we have a very different definition of poltiical.

I don't draw a distinction. Confucianism offers insight into the way people should live, and implies a spiritual side of men alongside the physical. I believe it should qualify as religious.

In the sense that a system of morality can be qualified as religious, then I would agree. But under that qualification, even atheists could be classified as religious.

Good. I think China should have the sense of confidence that other nations do in ruling and governing themselves.

Although some Apolyton posters do at times descend into levels of vitrol resembling those expressed on the Chinese forums... I think we rarely hear things along the lines of "fox-spirited villain" or "****head" or "you should be killed and dipped in acid" or "burned to death" in response to mere disagreement regarding some concept that the holy communist party holds to be true.

Seems some disconnection here. How can they tolerate minorities when they are persecuting christians and buddhists?

By promoting their culture, by the child thing (as earlier stated) I visited some Uighur homes near Urumqi that had about 4-6 children each, by some economic incentives, by affirmative action in schooling, by giving extra education funds in some minority areas, etc.

They do deserve the same freedoms and prosperity as the west, but they wont get there under the current administration.

Well, we will see. Incrementially, they are much better off in terms of freedoms now than they were 5 or even 10 years ago, and as capitalism seeps in more and more, they will have to grant at least more economic freedom. This does not necessarily translate into political freedom, but it could. Economic freedom is guaranteed to increase, the others may or may not follow. But heavens, freedom is freedom- at least it's progress. A nationalist government is likely to practice trade protectionism and even more insularity.

What about India?

India's army is a joke compared to China's. India's economy is second class compared to China's. Maybe India will be something worth talking about in 12-15 years ,but right now it's booming population and extreme poverty and corruption and bureaucratic mismanagement have really marginalized it. You seem to hold india in an extremely high measure of respect, but it doesn't spend much on Defense, its economy is still a developing economy, whereas China has nearly moved into industrial/modern economy status.

You can't count on India to balance China for a while... It's not even on the Security Council and hasn't actually done any balancing in Myanmar in recent times- which everyone had expected it to do. It is quite tied up with Jammu-Kashmir, the HUGE moslem population minority, Arunchal-Pradesh, dealing with upset Tibetan Buddhist monks, and all number of other social problems.

An unprovoked nuclear launch on anyone would receive this response from the US. It doesn't matter if they were a battle group in the middle of the pacific or an american city. Lauching a nuclear weapon against the US will provoke a hard reaction. I honestly don't see much international outcry that wouldn't already be provoked with any response the US makes.

If a nuclear weapon was detonated against american military but not civilians, just war theory's proportionality principle demonstrates that the americans would not be justified in nuclear assaulting a civilian center.

Consider for a moment the world reaction to the US invasion of Iraq, or world opinion against the US being peevish about Iran... or Israel's probably illegal attacks against the Syrian nuclear reactor. An american might think all that was justified- Europe, and especially Russia would certainly NOT see it that way.

India is a counterweight and balance for China. Currently their incomes are rising faster and they will soon have a larger labour force.

But not necessarily a better labor force or a better educated one. China has already moved up the value-added-chain and is an anchor to Asia. India won't even approach anything NEAR china thanks to its retrogressive regulations for the next 10-15 years. I really think you are counting on India far too much. There is honestly a possibility that India doesn't want to balance China. The two have settled most border disputes. The only big gripe right now is the D. Lama's residence in India... India even seems to have ceded influence in Southeast Asia.

The only options to balance China appear to be:

* Russia- which appears to be cultivating a good relationship
* India- Which is too marginal and friendly
* The United States
* Japan - Which is strategically in a poor position and is more dependent daily on the Chinese economy.

[DarkCloud]

Ali- I'd also be interested in perusing them.

[Alinestra Covelia]

So noted. I'll get copies to DarkCloud and DaShi when they're done. I've got a working draft of the essay about conflicts of interest in the Chinese legal system. I don't foresee doing any revisions to that.

But I have a much more ambitious paper about corporate ethics for foreign firms in China, and that's going to require a lot more revisions. I can still post it if you're interested but it's nowhere near complete right now.

[Ben Kenobi]

Perhaps, but perhaps not. Missionaries were active in anti-government activities in the past, and they can excite emotions and mobilize the people. If there is one thing that the chinese government cannot stand it is a different view or dissent on the right way of doing something.

And that's a problem. not with the Christians, but with the government.

the Taiping rebellion isn't seen as necessariily indigenous, it is seen by at least some as encouraged by the Christians- which puts it on par with the Moslem fundamentalist terrorists. The Chinese have a long memory.

It was a huge war, compared to anything in the west, but it was indigenous. I don't see how they can say otherwise. They were severe problems in Qing China that had nothing to do with the West.

For example, China has never been settled when ruled by a tribe that was not Han. Never. That was the biggest cause of the Revolt, that sought to destroy the Qing dynasty.

On another note, I would rather not derail this discussion here, but although Christianity preaches a message of peace- ideas like Liberation Theology, and even the ancient Crusades, or more recently the Rwandan Genocide (in a deeply religious society) clearly demonstrate how easily Christians can kill. It's not facile to assume that Christians are destabilizing.

To a regime that values intellectual conformity Christianity is destabilising. However, the most stable governments in the world have had Christian roots.

Liberation Theology, isn't Christian at all. The Crusades are an interesting case. Are you aware that all the areas involved were Christian, and were invaded by the Muslims? It's not an aggressive response, but a defensive attempt to free areas that were largely captured. It wasn't 'randomly' directed, you won't see folks Crusading just for the heck of it.

I'm not sure how you can pin the Rwandan genocide on us either. Christians were the ones being killed after all.

I think you might misunderstand- the nationalists inside china aren't the "nationalist" party. They are for a greater china- which would include your Tibet, and Xinjiang Province, and Taiwan, and Singapore, and they claim sea-rights out over 1000 miles from the shore, far beyond that guaranteed by international agreements. Their lines of claim run right up to the 100 mile sovereign zones of the Philippines and Indonesia.

That's all international relations though. My question pertained more to how they would see their brothers in China. At least for the diaspora, a nationalist China would be far superior to the one we have now. There would also be greater freedoms in China associated with such.

Admittedly, the Taiwanese people also landed there- but they claimed it in the name of Taiwan, not a greater China.

Then what was the whole fuss 40 years ago about? Taiwan did claim to be the representatives of a greater china, and honestly, they did have a legitimate claim.

China isn't communist first off. The communist party is a status quo party. They want economic development and don't want to screw up the country. A nationalist government might be willing to take risks to hurt their economy in the pursuit of irredentist claims, and in the pursuit of regional hegemony.

Taking risks is a bad thing? I don't see how this differs from the status quo, where China is seeking regional hegemony right now. Communists haven't been particularly good at not provoking needless wars with their neighbours. The economic flourishing under a nationalist government alone would be worth the switch.

In the sense that a system of morality can be qualified as religious, then I would agree. But under that qualification, even atheists could be classified as religious.

How so? They usually deny the existance of the supernatural.

By promoting their culture, by the child thing (as earlier stated) I visited some Uighur homes near Urumqi that had about 4-6 children each, by some economic incentives, by affirmative action in schooling, by giving extra education funds in some minority areas, etc.

That would be an explosive problem in a China where the Chinese can't have more then one kid.

Well, we will see. Incrementially, they are much better off in terms of freedoms now than they were 5 or even 10 years ago, and as capitalism seeps in more and more, they will have to grant at least more economic freedom. This does not necessarily translate into political freedom, but it could.

Any examples where the two aren't connected?

A nationalist government is likely to practice trade protectionism and even more insularity.

Insularity? You just said they were making greater claims on their neighbourhood. I don't see the current situation as tenable. China is protectionist. China is insular in terms of trade. Changing both with improve the lives of the Chinese.

India's army is a joke compared to China's. India's economy is second class compared to China's. Maybe India will be something worth talking about in 12-15 years

Really? That's not what I see. India has had an excellent economy and one of the best militaries in that part of the world.

right now it's booming population and extreme poverty and corruption and bureaucratic mismanagement have really marginalized it.

Population will give it influence over China. India will be a bulwark against any 'expansion' they desire and the fact that India has made up the third smaller that they were then China is very significant.

PPP GDP is only about a fifth smaller then China. In China, GDP per capita is about 7,590, whereas in India it is 6,737. That is a gap, but one that will be overcome.

You seem to hold india in an extremely high measure of respect, but it doesn't spend much on Defense, its economy is still a developing economy, whereas China has nearly moved into industrial/modern economy status.

By all measures they are not as far along, but there is far more of a gap between the west and the industrial nations then between China and India.

You can't count on India to balance China for a while... It's not even on the Security Council

They should be.

and hasn't actually done any balancing in Myanmar in recent times- which everyone had expected it to do. It is quite tied up with Jammu-Kashmir, the HUGE moslem population minority, Arunchal-Pradesh, dealing with upset Tibetan Buddhist monks, and all number of other social problems.

Why hasn't China dealt with Burma? Burma has borders with both.

If a nuclear weapon was detonated against american military but not civilians, just war theory's proportionality principle demonstrates that the americans would not be justified in nuclear assaulting a civilian center.

Launching an unprovoked nuclear strike, the problem is that how do you prevent escalation? If you stop to consider, you could be too late to prevent more nukes from striking americans.

Consider for a moment the world reaction to the US invasion of Iraq,

Saddam was gassing kurds in his country. I don't see why he is different then say Hitler, except the fact that Hitler did it to white people.

Europe, and especially Russia would certainly NOT see it that way.

Russia sees it as in their sphere of interest, and Europe? Well they sell weapons to the other side, so their interests are threatened too by the estabilishment of a free democracy in the middle east with ties to the US.

But not necessarily a better labor force or a better educated one.

In time. China has a 20 year window thanks to the One child policy. India has no such restriction.

India doesn't want to balance China.

Talk to them. Arrogance is a flaw in the Chinese plans. If you overlook India that will be costly in any wider conflict.

* Russia- which appears to be cultivating a good relationship

True, the greatest threat to China from Russia is actually in Baikal. The expansion and electrification of the Trans Siberian allows them to greatly increase military shipments through their bottleneck.

Japan - Which is strategically in a poor position and is more dependent daily on the Chinese economy.

Strategically in a poor position? I honestly think you are overlooking them. Japan is the success that China is not in terms of both political freedoms and industrialisation.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh bit of a sidebar.

DarkCloud, do you know much about the Jade Gate? I've always been fascinated by it and wanted to know more.

[DaShi]

It's worrying that Chinese students overseas have begun beating citizens of their host countries because of their opinions on Tibet and other controversial issues regarding China.

[LordShiva]

Oh man, I'd love it if an angry nationalistic Chinese student (or even a manageably small number of them) tried to fight me