Beijing 2008–A half-century of persecution
The People’s Republic of China is the largest perpetrator of state-sponsored religious and political persecution in the world. Although the communist party in China has been careful in recent years to avoid the kind of large-scale brutality that gained the world’s attention during the Tiananmen Square protests, it has continued to interrogate, harass, and jail religious leaders and political dissidents on a regular basis.
When the 2008 Olympics were awarded to Beijing, many hoped that the event would force the PRC to improve its stance on human rights. Recent events in Tibet, however, have shown that you can’t teach an old communist new tricks. The latest move by Beijing is classic totalitarianism: they are ramping up a “political education” campaign which includes requiring Buddhist monks to renounce the Dalai Lama and hand over any photos of him which they possess.
Rather than boycott the 2008 games, I am hoping that many of the free world’s athletes find some way to show solidarity with Tibetans and embarass the communist regime. The attention of the world could yet force the PRC to change its ways.
Update: Congressman Thaddeus McCotter has introduced H.R. 5668, which would prohibit government officials and employees from attending the opening ceremonies.
Did giving the Soviets the Olympics prod them to improve human rights?
What country has the most people in jail per capita? Is it China? I forget . . .
You may want to take a look and know the truth.
http://tibetpedia.org/
Hmmm… The above address is for a web site that appears to be sympathetic toward the PRC’s stance on Tibet. What’s hilarious is that the author appears to have been completely duped by an obvious parody article purportedly written by Steve Jobs on the blog fakesteve.blogspot.com.
Phil,
Not that it has any bearing whatsoever on China’s human rights abuses, but the US has the highest per capita officially documented prison population. However, human rights activists estimate there may be as many as 20 million prisoners in China when you include political prisoners and forced laborers. Also, China simply executes a lot of people for relatively minor crimes. So if you’re trying to suggest that China isn’t any worse than the US, you’re utterly, disgustingly wrong.
Not trying to claim China isn’t any worse than the U.S., although accusing me of that is a great way to ignore the actual facts.
Rather, I’m trying to point out that, unfortunately, you have to do some work to distinguish the two. Even assuming the 20 million prisoners, China’s per capita incarceration rate would only be double America’s. And more to the point, America would *still come in second in the world* above Russia and way above South Africa.
And yeah, China executes people for minor crimes. We just use military-level force against non-violent drug offenders when we break down their doors with SWAT teams armed with machine guns. So there, finally, is a distinction between us and China — when people die due to OUR overreaction to minor crimes, it’s not intentional . . . just forseeable.
It’s tricky with things like the Olympics — as to whether taking part will make us complicit in the repression and give it moral authority, or whether it will pressure the government to change. It can very easily go either way. I don’t think there’s a simple formula to make it work the right way. It requires constant attention to the details.
As to repression within the United States, anyone who wants to organize a boycott of the Olympics the next time they’re scheduled to be held in the U.S. can do so. It might even do some good.
At the start of World War II, Franklin Roosevelt was motivated to pressure the southern states to end their system of convict labor — he was afraid of the propaganda value for Japan and Germany, and he also needed African-Americans to help fight the war. The Soviet Union also had a system of convict labor at this time, on a much more massive and cruel scale. Stalin was also concerned about the way enemies would use it for propaganda purposes. His solution was to keep information about it from getting to the outside world.
Phil,
I’m sorry, but trying to compare countries’ human rights records based on their per-capita incarceration rates alone is ludicrous.
Without a doubt, there are legitimate criticisms to be made about the criminal justice system in the US. But there’s just no comparison between the US and China in terms of human rights, so for you to say that “you have to do some work to distinguish the two” is completely ridiculous and revolting, as it minimizes the tremendous injustice done to countless people under the communist regime in China.
[my post was] “completely ridiculous and revolting, as it minimizes the tremendous injustice done to countless people under the communist regime in China.”
Yeah, well, I don’t live in China, and neither do you. And the Chinese government isn’t going to listen to anything I say that might let China off the hook. Nor is China going to feel reproached by your vigorous rejoinder of my complaints about injustice in America.
So I think it’s safe to say that my “rediculous and revolting” suggestion that we focus on problems here in America, where I live, isn’t hurting the Chinese.
However, saying “stop talking about problems here in America — you’re minimizing the horrible problems overseas!” actually does harm people in America. If people in America were more willing to pay attention to the injustices that go on under their own noses, they might actually make a difference.
Of course, one might say that focusing on the horrible, terrible, unfathomable (there, satisfied?) problems overseas is a way to forget about/minimize the problems we have here at home.
It’s untrue that the Chinese government doesn’t care what you say. It has shown that it cares a LOT about what you say, just as other repressive regimes of the last century cared about what people thought.
So I think it’s safe to say that my “rediculous and revolting” suggestion that we focus on problems here in America, where I live, isn’t hurting the Chinese.
That isn’t what you did. You made a remark that suggested that you see some kind of hypocrisy in criticizing the Chinese government for jailing its country’s residents for criticizing their government, among other things, when we too have laws that are not justified. If you had suggested, as a response to this post, that we focus on problems in America instead of noticing what is happening in China, I would have responded, “It is no response to this single post on China, out of many posts on various topics, to argue that we should be talking about something else instead. Bloggers write on a range of topics, and there is ample opportunity for anyone who wants to blog about a topic that is insufficiently discussed to do so themselves. Further, there are enough well-known current bloggers that American drug laws and the excesses in enforcing them are discussed, and there is no reason why every blogger should make every post about whatever issue might be the most important, in your opinion.”
So there, finally, is a distinction between us and China — when people die due to OUR overreaction to minor crimes, it’s not intentional . . . just forseeable.
Also, that is a pretty big difference. It may not be big enough, but it is pretty big.
Phil,
My replies to you were a little too strong, and for that I apologize. As I’ve said, I agree we have problems with the criminal justice system in the US, but the human rights abuses in China are worse by orders of magnitude.
If someone had posted about the problems in the US and I replied saying “But we’re not as bad as China!” you’d be right to criticize me for using problems overseas as a distraction from solving problems at home. But this post is about China, and I think it’s very much worth focusing attention on the human rights situation there in light of this year’s olympic games.
Keep in mind that just because China’s bad doesn’t mean the Tibet (and the Dalai Lama) are good. Sure, China is a harsh ruler, but that doesn’t make the Dalai Lama any less of a fraud.
Why should we keep in mind that the Dalai Lama is a fraud (whatever that means)? What difference does that make to the issue at hand?
Because the entire “Free Tibet” movement is premised on restoring the Dalai Lama to power. It seems inevitable that discussions of China’s faults in the matter end up resulting in an expression of support for the Dalai Lama’s cause. Considering that Tibet suffered as much under the Dalai Lama as under China, and restoring the Dalai Lama to power simply means exchanging communist oppression for dictatorial oppression, any liberty-minded individual ought to oppose BOTH parties in the dispute.
Free Tibet, sure, but only if that means giving power to the people and keeping the Dalai Lama off his elitist pedestal.
Then what to make of those news stories that tell us about two freedom/resistance factions in Tibet, one that invokes connections to the Dalai Lama and one that pointedly does not?
I just won a free year!!!!! suc on dat