Olympics / Tibet Issue

[DBAHO]

Really been in the news worldwide over the past few weeks. The torch was in London yesterday, and they had security and police surrounding each torch holder, and yet protestors still got through. And now Jacques Rogge has come out and said this;

 

International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge said he was "very concerned" about unrest in Tibet, but played down talk of a boycott. The head of an organization that oversees 205 national Olympic committees called on Beijing to open a dialogue with its critics.

 

The moves illustrate how the largest anti-government protests in Tibet in two decades are sparking rare political debate within the Olympic movement, four months ahead of the games.

 

"I'm very concerned with the international situation and what's happening in Tibet," Rogge said Monday at a meeting of the IOC and national Olympic committees in Beijing.

 

"The torch relay has been targeted. The International Olympic Committee has expressed its serious concern and calls for a rapid peaceful resolution in Tibet," Rogge said in a brief speech at the meetings' opening ceremony.

 

In a statement read to the meeting, Mario Vazquez Rana of the Association of National Olympic Committees said the group was: "Confident that the government of the People's Republic of China should strive to find through dialogue and understanding a fair and reasonable solution to the internal conflict that affects the Tibet region."

 

The comment was to be submitted for inclusion in a joint statement issued with the IOC at the end of this week's meeting.

 

China has faced rising criticism ahead of the Olympics on issues ranging from Tibet to curbs on free speech and the government's close ties to the Sudanese regime accused of overseeing atrocities in Darfur.

 

On Monday, a Beijing Olympics spokesman criticized protesters who tried to disrupt the torch relay in London, saying their actions were a "disgusting" form of sabotage by Tibetan separatists.

 

Demonstrators, many of them challenging China's policies in Tibet and Darfur, tried to board a torch relay bus and attempted to grab the torch during the procession Sunday. One protester tried to snuff out the flame with what appeared to be a fire extinguisher.

 

Police said 37 people were arrested for a range of public order offenses. Security for the event was tight, with several dozen uniformed agents jogging alongside torchbearers to shield them from repeated onslaughts.

 

"A few Tibetan separatists attempted to sabotage the torch relay in London, and we strongly denounce their disgusting behavior," said Sun Weide, a spokesman for the Beijing Olympic organizing committee.

 

While Rogge made no direct reference to the protests, he denounced violence "for whatever reason," as "not compatible with the values of the torch relay or the Olympic Games."

 

Rogge acknowledged that "some politicians have played with the idea of boycotts," but added: "As I speak today, however, there is no momentum for a generalized boycott."

 

Various foreign politicians have floated the idea of staying away from the Games' opening ceremony. In Saturday editions of Le Monde, one of French President Nicolas Sarkozy's Cabinet ministers was quoted as saying China would have to release political prisoners and open a dialogue with Tibet's exiled Buddhist leader, the Dalai Lama, for Sarkozy to take part in the Aug. 8 ceremony.

 

China's communist government said 22 have died in violence stemming from protests in Tibet and Tibetan-inhabited regions of western China that turned violent on March 14.

 

Supporters of the Dalai Lama say up to 140 people have died, including eight killed when security forces fired on protesters on Thursday night.

 

China's blames the Dalai Lama's supporters for fomenting the violence and has rejected international calls to open a dialogue to address concerns its policies are harming the region's traditional Buddhist culture.

 

Among the attendees at Monday's meeting, IOC coordination commission member Alex Gilady said he expected the pressure to ease after the Paris and San Francisco legs of the torch relay that are expected to draw the most protesters.

 

"The important message is to tell our athletes that some people are trying to use them and to ride on their backs for solutions that the world has to find in other places like the United Nations," said Gilady, also a senior vice president at NBC Sports, which holds the rights to broadcast the Olympics in the U.S.

 

British IOC member Craig Reedie dismissed the London protests as "isolated flashpoints."

 

"It wasn't as serious as you would have thought on television," Reedie said.

 

So are people in support of boycotts for the upcoming Olympics?

[FlaSoxxJim]

Really been in the news worldwide over the past few weeks. The torch was in London yesterday, and they had security and police surrounding each torch holder, and yet protestors still got through. And now Jacques Rogge has come out and said this;

So are people in support of boyscotts for the upcoming Olympics?

 

I think that with not only the Tibet controversy, but with a whole slew of social/political/environmental/etc. issues, China willingly let themselves be put under the world microscope when they won the Olympic bid.

Edited April 8, 2008 by FlaSoxxJim

[southsider2k5]

Really been in the news worldwide over the past few weeks. The torch was in London yesterday, and they had security and police surrounding each torch holder, and yet protestors still got through. And now Jacques Rogge has come out and said this;

So are people in support of boycotts for the upcoming Olympics?

 

No. If we really want to depoliticize sports, we need to do it.

[EvilMonkey]

This is why I never want the olympics here again. That, and the threat of terrorists screwing everything up.

[DBAHO]

This is why I never want the olympics here again. That, and the threat of terrorists screwing everything up.

Do you think if America had the Olympics in 04 or 08, you'd be getting a lot of protestors about the war in Iraq.

 

Just on Tibet, I fully support the protests. Tibet deserves to be its own country IMHO, as China's been weeding out the Tibetan culture for over 60 years by importing its own people in there.

[EvilMonkey]

Do you think if America had the Olympics in 04 or 08, you'd be getting a lot of protestors about the war in Iraq.

 

Just on Tibet, I fully support the protests. Tibet deserves to be its own country IMHO, as China's been weeding out the Tibetan culture for over 60 years by importing its own people in there.

Oh yes. I believe every bat-s*** crazy that thinks GWB is the devil would be out in force, the Anarchists, Free Gitmo people, Free Tibet, Free Hat, you name it.

 

As for Tibet, I must admit I don't know as much about the situation as I would like. But while we are at it, how about Free Tiawan!

[bmags]

I don't believe China should be allowed to do anything on the world stage until they treat their people like all the other countries on the world stage.

[DBAHO]

Here's a quick background on Tibet FWIW;

 

Tibet proclaimed its independence from China in 1911 on the eve of the fall of the Qing dynasty and the subsequent internal turmoil.

 

Tibet remained a defacto independent state until shortly after the conclusion of the Chinese civil war, when on October 1, 1949, the People's Republic of China was formally proclaimed in Beijing and the following year launched an armed invasion of Tibet.[3] The Chinese army of 40,000 men routed the unprepared defending Tibetan army of only 5,000 near the city of Chamdo. The defeat subsequently led to the signing of the Seventeen point agreement by the Tibetan Government

 

In 1950, the People's Liberation Army invaded the Tibetan area of Chamdo, crushing resistance from the ill-equipped Tibetan army.[77] Since the signing of the Seventeen Point Agreement in 1951, Tibet has been officially incorporated into the People's Republic of China. According to this Agreement between the Tibetan and Chinese central governments, the Dalai Lama-ruled Tibetan area was supposed to be a highly autonomous area of China. Before 1951, according to anthropologists, a vast majority of the people of Tibet were serfs ("mi ser"),[78][79][80][81] often bound to land owned by monasteries and aristocrats. Tibetans in exile have claimed that the serfs and their masters formed only a small part of Tibetan society, and argued that Tibet would have modernized itself without China's intervention. However, the Chinese government claims that most Tibetans were still serfs in 1951,[82], and have proclaimed that the Tibetan government inhibited the development of Tibet during its self-rule from 1913 to 1959, and opposed modernization efforts by the Chinese government.[82]

 

This 1951 agreement was initially put into effect in the Tibetan regions under Dalai Lama's administration (Ü-Tsang and western Kham). However, Eastern Kham and Amdo(Qinghai) were considered by the Chinese to be outside the administration of the government of Tibet in Lhasa, and were thus treated like any other Chinese province with land redistribution implemented in full. Most lands were taken away from noblemen and monasteries and re-distributed to serfs. As a result, a rebellion led by noblemen and monasteries broke out in Amdo and eastern Kham in June 1956. The insurrection, supported by the American CIA, eventually spread to Lhasa. It was crushed by 1959. During this campaign, tens of thousands of Tibetans were killed. The 14th Dalai Lama and other government principals fled to exile in India, but isolated resistance continued in Tibet until 1972 when the CIA abruptly withdrew its support. After the Lhasa rebellion in 1959, the Chinese government lowered the level of autonomy of Central Tibet, and implemented full-scale land redistribution in all areas of Tibet.

 

In conclusion, the analysis of these statistics originating from National Bureau of Statistics shows that between 1959 and 2000 the Tibetan population decreased by about one million, a 15% decline. During the same period, the Chinese population doubled, and the worldwide population increased threefold.[117] This analysis gives an additional argument concerning the estimation of the number of Tibetan deaths between 1959 and 1979. It suggests the existence of a demographic deficit of the Tibetan population and the precise time course and causes must be specified.

 

Also I think the ruling government of Taiwan wants indepedence now from China and to be recognised as its own country right?

[DBAHO]

I don't believe China should be allowed to do anything on the world stage until they treat their people like all the other countries on the world stage.

Those are pretty much my thoughts on the situation also.

 

There's not exactly a whole lot of "free speech" in China going on, and they're very quick to stamp out those type of things.

 

As for the city itself and the pollution, well there's another reason. Some athletes have withdrawn already, because they don't want to deal wth that, and that says it all really.

[GoSox05]

Oh yes. I believe every bat-s*** crazy that thinks GWB is the devil would be out in force, the Anarchists, Free Gitmo people, Free Tibet, Free Hat, you name it.

 

As for Tibet, I must admit I don't know as much about the situation as I would like. But while we are at it, how about Free Tiawan!

 

 

Those god damn protesters, what do they think we live in a free country or something.

[Texsox]

I have mixed feelings, I think SS hit the nail on the head, that we really should depoliticize the Olympics and hold the games and keep them above this sort of thing, at least as much as we can. Also, every country has someone who would protest something they have done/are doing/will do. No person, or country, is perfect.

 

Having said that, as an American, freedom of speach is something I hold dear, so advocating others to STFU doesn't sit well either.

[NorthSideSox72]

Those god damn protesters, what do they think we live in a free country or something.

Why post this? Alpha simply stated that all the protestors would be out in force. And yes, some of them are bats*** crazy. Please think before you post.

 

And further, please read the pinned thread about conduct in the Buster. Thank you for your consideration.

 

 

[Texsox]

Oh yes. I believe every bat-s*** crazy that thinks GWB is the devil would be out in force, the Anarchists, Free Gitmo people, Free Tibet, Free Hat, you name it.

 

As for Tibet, I must admit I don't know as much about the situation as I would like. But while we are at it, how about Free Tiawan!

 

Are you suggesting that you have to be bat-s*** crazy to protest against G-Dubya? Gitmo, is something that I think intelligent people, could, and should protest.

And I believe it is Free Tiawan! With purchase!

[jasonxctf]

There are really 2 issues at hand here.

 

1) Does the US boycott the opening ceramonies?

 

2) Does the US boycott the entire Olympics?

 

As for #1, I really don't care if the team walks out in some fruity outfit or not.

 

As for #2, there is no way that the US should ever boycott the Olympic games. Politics and Sports should not mix. I will also disclose some personal issues that make up this decision. A coach of mine qualified for the 1980 Olympics which of course was boycotted. This individual spent hundreds of hours training for many years to qualify for the US team, just to have it taken away from him over a silly political spat.

 

In addition, issue #3 could be that of corporate sponsorship. Doesn't Coke and McDonalds sponsor the Olympics?

[EvilMonkey]

Are you suggesting that you have to be bat-s*** crazy to protest against G-Dubya? Gitmo, is something that I think intelligent people, could, and should protest.

And I believe it is Free Tiawan! With purchase!

No, my point was that EVERYONE would be out protesting SOMETHING. And what about Free Hat?

[Balta1701]

There are really 2 issues at hand here.

 

1) Does the US boycott the opening ceramonies?

 

2) Does the US boycott the entire Olympics?

 

As for #1, I really don't care if the team walks out in some fruity outfit or not.

 

As for #2, there is no way that the US should ever boycott the Olympic games. Politics and Sports should not mix. I will also disclose some personal issues that make up this decision. A coach of mine qualified for the 1980 Olympics which of course was boycotted. This individual spent hundreds of hours training for many years to qualify for the US team, just to have it taken away from him over a silly political spat.

 

In addition, issue #3 could be that of corporate sponsorship. Doesn't Coke and McDonalds sponsor the Olympics?

Well, let's answer these with the perspective of the 80/84 olympics. The U.S. made it's political statement about the Afghan war, but the people who suffered were the athletes. These guys may not care about the issue at all, and it's not their job to do so. They're not there to care about that. Their job is to compete and represent the nation in that fashion. I think boycotting the whole games would be a terrible move. The only reason to do that would be if you were truly worried about safety, either due to the air quality (i.e that Kenyan marathon runner who took himself out for that reason) or the team didn't feel like it would be safe (a-la Munich).

 

In terms of the opening ceremony, I'm a little bit more indifferent. It would certainly get attention and be effective if teams refused to walk out. Is there any punishment for a team doing that?

 

One other potential option that you didn't suggest, one that has in fact been recommended and in fact is what Chancellor Merkel is doing...is to have the President be the one to do the boycott. This, I believe I would be in favor of. The President fills the role of head of state, therefore, everything he does is political. He is not there to compete. His presence or absence at that event will, no matter what, be interpreted as a statement of approval or disapproval. If the U.S. feels strongly about a government oppressing and killing and jailing its people for trying to be free (where have we heard a lot about that recently?) then I think this is a totally appropriate action.

 

Don't punish the athletes for the crimes of another regime.

 

One more thing...what message does it send if China is able to crush dissent in Tibet and the President still receives them warmly while another country, let's Call it Ira(insert letter here) does the same while receiving a cold shoulder?

[Balta1701]

Today Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) introduced a bill in Congress restricting all government officials and employees from attending the opening ceremonies of the 2008 Beijing Olympics in communist China. The bill does NOT affect America’s Olympic athletes.

 

The bill H.R. 5668, The Communist Chinese Olympic Accountability Act, is a follow up to a September 11, 2007, letter to President George W. Bush in which Congressman McCotter and a bi-partisan coalition of Members of Congress, state: "We urge you [President Bush] to reconsider your decision to attend the 2008 Beijing Olympics in communist China."

 

McCotter commended Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent comments regarding President Bush boycotting the opening ceremonies of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, and acknowledge her long-standing, principled opposition to communist China’s human rights violations. "Hopefully, Speaker Pelosi will be supportive of this bill; and our colleagues will join us in denouncing the reprehensible actions of communist China and the changing the errant decision of the President to attend the Opening Ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics," said Rep. McCotter, Chairman of House Republican Policy Committee.

 

"While we applaud the hard work of all the Olympic athletes, President Bush, as the leader of the Free World, must uphold America’s beacon of liberty to the world’s oppressed. This noble cause is harmed through his attendance as a guest of this oppressive communist government," said McCotter.

Press Release link.

 

On the other side, here's an argument for why turning your back on China is the wrong move (note, Anti-Clinton argument, please forgive, just trying to fill in the blanks)

Hillary Clinton is not out of bounds in advocating for other nations to look into their souls and to call for adherence to basic human rights conventions. She is not wrong to speak about human rights in every speech she gives and to speak to advocates of liberalism and choice who have been incarcerated in China, in Egypt, in Burma, or wherever else there are political prisoners.

 

But she is out of bounds and reckless when calling for the weight of the presidency to be used to punish another nation at an event which is drawing China into the blue chip end of the international order, into global institution building and stakeholding, and which is stroking China’s national pride at a key point in its ascendancy as a self-realized important power.

 

Hillary Clinton’s call for boycotting the opening ceremonies is an example of a simple-minded, binary approach to US-China relations.

 

Apparently, she has been led to believe that if Bush is absent at the ceremonies that China will help us on Sudan or allow Tibet a track to political autonomy or independence. This is wrong and naïve. China will do neither – and if anything, we will embarrass those in the China establishment who are advocates of deal-making with America and proponents of responsible global stakeholding, which has been the course we have seen China on.

 

There is no doubt that China’s positive role in the troubled Six Party Talks moved our affairs with North Korea forward – even though this process proves to have predictably unpredictable swings up and down. China also proffered some counsel to Iran behind the scenes in advocating release of several intellectuals that Iran had arrested last year as China was not eager to see a substantially tightened third round of economic sanctions out of the UN at that time, and China helped give Iran an important nudge when we needed it.

 

America and the world have a serious brewing problem with Iran and an ongoing challenge with North Korea. China has secured strategic footholds in Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia, and is spreading its influence in the Caucuses. China is not a natural ally of Russia – in fact, quite the reverse – and yet bumbling American policy seems to be throwing them together in common circumstances in ways that should not be happening.

 

Hillary Clinton or any President needs to avoid the temptation to pander to the American public when crises with the key global powers emerge. They need to demonstrate an awareness of our core interests with China and what we most want from China in the arena of international affairs.

 

Nukes should be at the top of that list – and then there should be a cascading set of second and third and fourth and fifth priorities with a state like China. A new or revised economic arrangement with China would be second on my list – and then perhaps a serious commitment to climate change in third or fourth place. Human rights should be on the list -- but make the pursuit of Chinese subscription to a higher human rights bar a serious effort characterized by consultations, encouragement, deal-making that involves incentives and yes, disincentives. But Clinton gave no sense of a fuller, serious game plan on the human rights front.

 

Which battles with China do we need to stalemate on, or delay, or even lose to achieve our primary national security and geopolitical objectives? And more importantly, what battles does China really need to win to be able to work with us?

 

But what we got from Hillary Clinton today was a shallow, binary, knee jerk impulse to withdraw the prestige of American attendance at an event that will not succeed in achieving the baseline objectives with Sudan or Tibet – and very well could raise China’s price for cooperating with us on other of the more important fronts in which we need them.

[lostfan]

Has anybody ever read China's official comments every time we throw someone into prison for espionage on behalf of China? They always act like we are completely making it up and they'd never do such a thing, and that they're offended we'd suggest it. I find it amusing.

[southsider2k5]

If the political leaders want to skip the opening ceremonies, fine. Do not make the athletes pay for their decesions. Marching into the Olympic stadium for the opening of the game is as much a part of the experience as anything else. Do not take that away from them.

[EvilMonkey]

Here is an interesting view on the China olympics from an American who is currently living and working in China.

http://leeinchina.com/index.php/site/spit_and_polish/

 

[BigSqwert]

I don't believe China should be allowed to do anything on the world stage until they treat their people like all the other countries on the world stage.

^^^^^

[Texsox]

Tangent, should we make a distinction between athletes playing in China and American businesses playing in China? Seems if our corporations can go over there and play, making money for themselves *and* the Chinese, our athletes should be accorded the same opportunity.

[FlaSoxxJim]

[mr_genius]

 

Excellent post

[Texsox]

But don't we love a country that gets tough in crime instead of coddling them like we do?