London 2012 Olympics

Seriously - in what way are the Olympics any more valid/interesting as a sporting event than the appropriate World Championships? Is it because I don't like athletics that I just don't get it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7333955.stm
now the french are having the same issues.

sport can be a political tool, yes, but the long sporting boycott of south africa accomplished nothing to end apartheid - the world just moved on and the old hardline nationalist men (Botha and his cronies) died or moved out of power (combined with sustained trade restrictions and political pressure). nor did the boycott of the moscow olympics affect soviet policy in afghanistan - they pulled out when it got too expensive. i think change in tibet is likely to follow a similar course, china is gradually loosening up anyway and getting more liberalised, and protesting against the olympics being held in beijing is basically useless. raising awareness and increasing political pressure on the chinese government over a sustained period will be far more effective.

unfortunately most western economies are far too dependent on chinese-produced goods (and in some cases, like Australia, on china buying raw materials) to really put pressure on them in a trade boycott sense.

to make this relevant, there are lots of bicycles in china (not sure if they're fixed though).

I think you're underestimating the importance of prestige. China wanted the Olympics as a symbol that is has 'arrived', and it would have been a unique opportunity to put across the vision of China that it wanted people to see. Bill was spot on in his comments about the political stakes involved in previous Games. Public diplomacy may be a bit intangible, but it's rather important in terms of being able to get things done in the world (compare public perceptions of America's leadership role in the world say, now, compared to under Clinton, or during the Cold War - and think about how easy it would be for America to assemble any coalition of countries willing to do, well, anything right now).

No, China's not going to pull out of Tibet because of these protests - but none of the protesters are so naive as to believe that could be possible. What it does do is raise the political cost of China's current Tibet policy by pissing all over the prestige value of the games and more or less ensuring that media coverage will continue to play to the protester's political rhythm rather than to the Chinese govt's.

Basically, these guys have seized the momentum and China's so far reacted in the most cack-handed way. Even normally sympathetic commentators have been wondering at the Cultural Revolution-esque words that have been coming out of politicians' mouths regarding the Tibet issue (calling the Dalai Lama a 'splittist' with an 'animal heart'!) I really don't see China being able to claw these Games back into the positive public diplomacy initiative that they wanted them to be.

h2o, good point. prestige is important. but the prestige argument is a two-edged sword. you have to consider both:
a) prestige in the international community (which is, i agree completely, getting trashed by the reaction to the tibetan independence movement)
b) internal prestige within China. i would argue that a big part of the motivation for dodgy regimes (nazi germany 1936, soviet russia 1980 etc) is to legitimise the regime in the eyes of its own people (bread and circuses and such). obviously with a state-controlled media it's easy for the Chinese government to spin the Tibetan protest in such a way as to discredit the protesters as violent thugs, terrorists or extremists, and reinforce the regime's legitimacy within China. So the protests might even be counterproductive - the Chinese govt can just keep repeating "Look how good we are at dealing with these criminals! We're protecting Chinese honour and sovereignty! It's good for you!".

Put it this way, I don't think most Chinese citizens are pro-Tibetan independence, and that's not going to change regardless of what commentators outside China say (it simply won't get through the Chinese government media filters).

weighing up these two balancing prestige effects is way beyond me. but i think it's worth considering. but i also think the chinese government knows it's big enough and powerful enough that it doesn't need to worry about what some newspaper columnists, MPs or lefty activists in london or new york think, so long as the Chinese people don't start itching for another revolution.

h2o, good point. prestige is important. but the prestige argument is a two-edged sword. you have to consider both:
a) prestige in the international community (which is, i agree completely, getting trashed by the reaction to the tibetan independence movement)
b) internal prestige within China. i would argue that a big part of the motivation for dodgy regimes (nazi germany 1936, soviet russia 1980 etc) is to legitimise the regime in the eyes of its own people (bread and circuses and such). obviously with a state-controlled media it's easy for the Chinese government to spin the Tibetan protest in such a way as to discredit the protesters as violent thugs, terrorists or extremists, and reinforce the regime's legitimacy within China. So the protests might even be counterproductive - the Chinese govt can just keep repeating "Look how good we are at dealing with these criminals! We're protecting Chinese honour and sovereignty! It's good for you!".

Put it this way, I don't think most Chinese citizens are pro-Tibetan independence, and that's not going to change regardless of what commentators outside China say (it simply won't get through the Chinese government media filters).

weighing up these two balancing prestige effects is way beyond me. but i think it's worth considering. but i also think the chinese government knows it's big enough and powerful enough that it doesn't need to worry about what some newspaper columnists, MPs or lefty activists in london or new york think, so long as the Chinese people don't start itching for another revolution.

Likewise, good point. Actually, that dichotomy is at the heart of a lot of conundrums in international relations - look at how Tony Blair was revered in the US and reviled at home for his position on Iraq.

Tibet independence.

Was this issue made more or less complicated by the chinese invasion and annexation?

so an englishman is talking to a chinese about invasion and annexation...

historically tibet was part of the chinese empire way back in the qing dynasty. the british invaded tibet whilst it was under qing rule. you want to talk about the slaughter there?

or do you want to talk about the opium wars (i'm from hong kong), the unequal treaties, the eight-nation alliance in beijing - the looting, murder, rape - all the stolen treasures from yuanmingyuan, obviously evident at the british museum? (oh by the way the the elgin marbles are still there)

or all the other deeds of the british empire elsewhere across the globe? india? australasia? south africa? wherever else "commonwealth"?

and let's not forget about the "war of terror".

Edmundane, your response to Buffalo Bill is a woeful example of ad hominem tu quoque topped of with a decent helping of implicit racism.

I mean genuinely woeful, comic even. I actually laughed. :D

I like bikes...

I like bikes...

So an englishman is talking to me about bikes...

Do you want to talk about the Elgin marbles ?

Shame on you.

Edmundane, your response to Buffalo Bill is a woeful example of ad hominem tu quoque topped of with a decent helping of implicit racism.

I mean genuinely woeful, comic even. I actually laughed. :D

+1 ... and thanks for the addition to my Latin - fortunately I keep a dictionary to hand... ;-)

please don't selectively quote me out of context. if you read the whole post, you'll see the other options i suggested (first) were the exact opposite point of view. i just suggested opposing points of view because i didn't want to put a particular political point of view in Tynan's mouth (i have/had no idea what his personal politics are).

i think it's pretty clear that i wasn't actually saying "fuck the protesters", although i do think they could claim more moral high ground if they weren't quite so extreme. getting violent just makes them look like a bunch of loonies and legitimises the OTT chinese security presence.

Fair enough, sorry about that.

Anyone see the Parisian rollerblade cops? SO 1990's...

Fair enough, sorry about that.

Anyone see the Parisian rollerblade cops? SO 1990's...

cheers.

they have rollerblade cops? that is awesome. but can't the crims just run up some stairs?

Maybe the rollerblade cops have developed hovering powers like the new Daleks?

so an englishman is talking to a chinese about invasion and annexation...

historically tibet was part of the chinese empire way back in the qing dynasty. the british invaded tibet whilst it was under qing rule. you want to talk about the slaughter there?

or do you want to talk about the opium wars (i'm from hong kong), the unequal treaties, the eight-nation alliance in beijing - the looting, murder, rape - all the stolen treasures from yuanmingyuan, obviously evident at the british museum? (oh by the way the the elgin marbles are still there)

or all the other deeds of the british empire elsewhere across the globe? india? australasia? south africa? wherever else "commonwealth"?

and let's not forget about the "war of terror".

As it happens, I am of mixed parentage. My father was London born and bred, but my mother was born in France, and had Yugoslav nationality til she was 18 (her mother was born a citizen of the Austro-Hungarian empire in what is now Croatia, and her father was born near Mostar, in what is now Bosnia).

If you want to debate British and English colonial crimes, that's fine by me, I know a little about it. I am not a Kiplingist, and I agree with George Orwell's statement made in 1942:

'We all live by robbing Asiatic coolies, and those of us who are 'enlightened' all maintain that those coolies ought to be set free; but our standard of living, hence our 'enlightenment', demands that the robbery continue. A humanitarian is always a hypocrite."

'Rudyard Kipling', originally published in Horizon Magazine.

It's absurd to justify modern crimes against peace by referring to old conquests. It is this kind of nonsense that has f***ed up the Balkans, the Middle East, and is routinely used by morally bankrupt regimes to validate wars of aggression against their neighbours.

reductio ad absurdum, the German government could very plausibly use the same logic to 'reclaim' Danzig, Konigsberg and the rest of East Prussia, otherwise known as Poland.

War On Terror? Don't make me laugh. Only a total idiot could not realise that you can not make war on an emotion. You might declare War on Terrorism, although it's still slightly absurd to have a war on extra-judicial killings, which is what murders resulting from 'terrorism' are. Better to engage in a Battle against Terrorists.

Whatever. All this is off the point. We can admit that the British, and other colonial powers, have a great responsibility for the current misfortunes of the Chinese people, but if we are talking about modern China, Mao (a butcher of innocents only paralleled by Stalin and Hitler) and the current leadership, responsible for the massacre in 1989 of many hundreds of protestors, surely should be shouldering more the of the blame?

Edmundane, your response to Buffalo Bill is a woeful example of ad hominem tu quoque topped of with a decent helping of implicit racism.

I mean genuinely woeful, comic even. I actually laughed. :D

yes, thanks for laughing, i maybe woeful, but i seriously request you reconsider your comment that i am in any way racist. the reason i chose to live in london is because of it's cultural diversity.

I did not refer to Buffalo Bill's comments as false i'm just saying i sense hypocrisy, let's not forget the history books. i don't think your claim that my response as a case of ad hominen tu quoque stands.

@ BB - that's a great Orwell essay, but he didn't write many shit ones.

Speaking of war on terror, have you seen the fairly recent South Park trilogy 'Imaginationland'. It's all about terrorists invading Americans' imaginations. Not one of their best, but some great scenes.

yes, thanks for laughing, i maybe woeful, but i seriously request you reconsider your comment that i am in any way racist. the reason i chose to live in london is because of it's cultural diversity.

I did not refer to Buffalo Bill's comments as false i'm just saying i sense hypocrisy, let's not forget the history books. i don't think your claim that my response as a case of ad hominen tu quoque stands.

So what do you call ascribing a whole set of opinions and prejudices to me (which I don't have) to counter a point, originally how did the Chinese invasion of Tibet make the socio-political environment in Tibet less complicated?

Come on, get real. I accept that colonial conquests were wrong, and that many actions past and present of the British government could quite clearly be crimes. But we weren't discussing British colonial policy, we discussing Tibet and China.

yes, thanks for laughing, i maybe woeful, but i seriously request you reconsider your comment that i am in any way racist. the reason i chose to live in london is because of it's cultural diversity.

I did not refer to Buffalo Bill's comments as false i'm just saying i sense hypocrisy, let's not forget the history books. i don't think your claim that my response as a case of ad hominen tu quoque stands.

A term used in debate to denote an argument made personally against an opponent, instead of against the opponent's argument.

No. I'll have to look for it! I am struggling to think of the doc that I would reccomend - something like Nightmares?

I reread the Orwell Penguin Essays again just recently. So much of it still terrifyingly relevant today.

Tynan, wouldn't this have been better as a poll:

A: Yes, fuck the Olympics
B: No, I don't want to
C: Don't care, I'll fuck just about anything that moves (and some inanimate objects if they happen to be the right colour)
D: "Suzanne Beware Of The Devil" by Dandy Livingstone

Buffalo Bill, I agree with what you said:

*"It's absurd to justify modern crimes against peace by referring to old conquests. It is this kind of nonsense that has f**ed up the Balkans, the Middle East, and is routinely used by morally bankrupt regimes to validate wars of aggression against their neighbours."

This is exactly why your original comment made me uncomfortable. I have a number of japanese friends and i go out with a japanese girl at the mo but i don't go and blame her grandparents or beat her up for the nanjing massacre etc. that's why i used the phrase "do you want to talk about".
we don't go blaming karl marx and lenin for people like stalin or mao do we? no. do we blame the original complications of tibet independence on the current chinese government? on hu jintao? i don't think so.

Buffalo Bill, I agree with what you said:

*"It's absurd to justify modern crimes against peace by referring to old conquests. It is this kind of nonsense that has f**ed up the Balkans, the Middle East, and is routinely used by morally bankrupt regimes to validate wars of aggression against their neighbours."

This is exactly why your original comment made me uncomfortable. I have a number of japanese friends and i go out with a japanese girl at the mo but i don't go and blame her grandparents or beat her up for the nanjing massacre etc. that's why i used the phrase "do you want to talk about".
we don't go blaming karl marx and lenin for people like stalin or mao do we? no. do we blame the original complications of tibet independence on the current chinese government? on hu jintao? i don't think so.

Edit: why are you bringing your gf's grand-parents into this? I didn't bring yours into it - you did. You also brought in my nationality, which is pretty, if not totally, irrelevant. This is absurd. Why would I blame YOUR grandparents for the actions of the PRC? Were they members of the CP Politburo (or the Chinese equiv)?

Maybe we don't blame the current leadership for the decision to invade and annex, but we definitely can blame them for well-documented and ongoing large-scale, systemic crimes against large sections of the population in Tibet.

Maybe we don't blame the current leadership for the decision to invade and annex, but we definitely can blame them for well-documented and ongoing large-scale, systemic crimes against large sections of the population in Tibet.

but i'd still say the protests started off in violence and the minds behind it are not giving the government a chance to negotiate, for obvious reasons.

http://all-sp.com for your South Park needs.

Edit: why are you bringing your gf's grand-parents into this? I didn't bring yours into it - you did. You also brought in my nationality, which is pretty, if not totally, irrelevant. This is absurd. Why would I blame YOUR grandparents for the actions of the PRC? Were they members of the CP Politburo (or the Chinese equiv)?

sorry that's just my kind of metaphor/analogy thing for "history" and "political relations". i have difficulty distilling my reasoning in empirical forms. i admit i'm absurd and i don't score good marks writing essays.

p.s. If my grandparents were members of the CP i wouldn't be lucky enough here to be talking to you.

but i'd still say the protests started off in violence and the minds behind it are not giving the government a chance to negotiate, for obvious reasons.

The systemic violence by the Chinese government against its own 'citizens' in Tibet was happening a long time before the current protests. This is well documented and verifiable. To imply otherwise is to misrepresent the situation.