OPINION & EDITORIAL
China deserves to act in its best interests
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Wasim Salman:
- Putting race into perspective (April 3, 2008)
- True democracies should not practice torture (March 12, 2008)
- American faith not going anywhere (February 27, 2008)
- Moral boundaries needed in research (February 13, 2008)
- Humanity must prevail in Gaza (January 30, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Saving Tibet not worth trouble (March 28, 2008)
- Sudanese victims need real support (September 19, 2006)
- U.S. must expose emerging cold war (January 25, 2007)
- Darfur action in U.S. interest (April 27, 2006)
- Tibetan flag flap should blow over (May 2, 2007)
by Wasim Salman
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Now that China is about to host the next round of the Olympic Games, it has become subject to increasing international criticism. Such criticism has centered on two main topics: Sudan and Tibet. China has been accused of assisting in the ongoing genocide in Darfur by refusing to cease arms sales to the Sudanese government. Likewise, China has been accused of long-running human rights abuses in Tibet.
The “free Tibet” demonstrations have historically been very peaceful but have recently become more aggressive and violent. The Tibet protests staged across Europe and the U.S. have resulted in near-deaths on a number of occasions. Given that China has become a focus of both the Olympic Games and the international economy, how much criticism does China really deserve?
The international criticism directed at China on the subject of Sudan has been growing since China won the bid to host the Olympic games. The link between China and Sudan is that both have long-standing economic and military ties. The trade essentially boils down to China selling the Sudanese government weaponry and importing nearly two-thirds of Sudan’s oil. According to the international community, China ought to cease such transactions and use its ties to induce peace rather than fuel the conflict. Such beliefs resulted in director Steven Spielberg’s withdrawal from being an artistic adviser to the Chinese Olympics.
Is this criticism justified? At first, it would appear to be, but the timing and the self-righteous tone is ridiculous.
Let us turn the situation around: Imagine if Israel were to host the Olympic Games. Given that the U.S. provides most of the weapons used to commit the overbearing and violent actions of the Israeli government, would the same tone and the same pressures arise for the U.S. from the international community to change the nature of its relationship with Israel? I don’t think so.
So why is it alright to ask this of China? If we agree that genocidal behavior is beyond immoral, then why not turn the light on ourselves and analyze the nature of our diplomatic, military and economic ties? Until this occurs, any sort of criticism hurled at China regarding Sudan is invalid.
Along with these criticisms comes the criticism of China regarding its treatment of Tibet. Tibet was formed in the seventh century but remained under Chinese rule until 1911. Approximately three decades later, the People’s Republic of China was created and subsequently invaded Tibet, reasserting Chinese control over the region. Since then, the Tibetan government in exile, led by the Dalai Llama, has continued to fight for full autonomy. They claim that Chinese actions in Tibet since its takeover in 1950 have been catastrophic and have led to multiple human rights violations.
Even though full autonomy is an extremely important goal for any country, the Chinese takeover of Tibet has for the most part improved Tibetans standards of living. For instance, Tibetans are currently the second-highest-paid workers in China; infant mortality in Tibet has fallen 43 percent since China took over; all highways currently running in Tibet were built by the PRC; and life expectancy in Tibet has risen by approximately 32 years. The list of benefits distributed to the Tibetan people from the Chinese government is rather impressive.
Such data leads one to wonder about the rather violent Tibet protests surrounding the Olympic torch. It is not justifiable to set up protests around the torch and especially to have them turn as violent as they have. Here, again, there is an issue with the tone and timing of the protests. The whole point of the Olympics is to bring the world together, not to divide and point fingers. To rally around the torch, to attempt to put it out in order to make a point, is demeaning to the very cause of the protesters.
Realistically, no nation is in a position to judge another. I do not mean to suggest that the PRC is some sort of immaculate government but that China is no different from most countries. There is not a single nation on this planet that has always acted purely with justice in mind. Quite obviously, China will have some problems in the way it chooses to develop both politically and economically. But rather than merely judging, damning and tarnishing the legacy of the Olympics, shouldn’t we instead be engaging in a dialogue for change? That is, after all, what the Olympics Games are about: peace, unity and conversation.
Wasim Salman (salman@wisc.edu) is a senior
majoring in international relations.
Anonymous (April 16, 2008 @ 4:00am):
Tibet is not pushing for full autonomy and the interference from the Chinese government has brought several benefits as you mention. The more pressing issue is the culture and traditions that are at risk. Protesting in support of preserving the unique heritage is entirely justified, regardless of what country one hails from. As for the timing, perhaps the Olympics have been staged in China to shed some light on the issue for the rest of the world to see.
Anonymous (April 16, 2008 @ 6:59am):
Nice side attack on Israel.
Anonymous (April 16, 2008 @ 9:53am):
"Realistically, no nation is in a position to judge another."
Do you also apply this notion to the USA?
China facilitates the genocide in Darfur, it's all about the oil I guess.
Anonymous (April 16, 2008 @ 12:36pm):
The West looked at the current Maoist style anti-Tibetan propaganda campaign, at China's failure to act as a responsible global stake holder in Darfur and Burma at the flooding of the world markets with shoddy goods made by poorly paid workers and did not like what it saw. Indeed, China has come to symbolized everything that is wrong with globalization.
For Chinese counter claims aside, it is not China's rise that democracies find distressing. It is the overwhelming evidence presented by China's response to the Olympic torch demonstrations that China's political opening has not only not kept pace with China's economic development but that it has not made any progress at all. Indeed, Chinese promises of liberalization at the time it was awarded the games were no more reliable than promises of tyrannies have always been.
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/49407.html
Anonymous (April 16, 2008 @ 1:19pm):
WASIM, YOU ARE INSANE.
Anonymous (April 16, 2008 @ 3:56pm):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9QNKB34cJo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvFv5Lt0JCA
plz watch those videos
Hilary Edwards (April 16, 2008 @ 4:10pm):
I want to begin with the issue that bothered me most about your article: your suggestion that U.S. is in the position of the pot calling the kettle black. Regardless of what perceived flaws there are with the U.S. government and our companies, they do not preclude an individualâs right to speak against human rights violations in other countries. Human rights are a global issue, and can be resolved through global discourse and global pressure. To turn a blind eye genocide in Darfur or to the killings of children and peaceful protesters in Tibet because one does not live in an ideal society would be misguided and irresponsible.
China funds and arms genocide in Darfur, persecutes Tibetans, the Uighur Muslims in East Turkistan, Falun Gong practitioners, Christians in China, and Chinese citizens who speak out for human rights, like Hu Jia recently. The international community needs to address this at many levels, including allowing citizens of other nations to exercise their rights to bring about this change. While I do not condone the acts of individuals who tried to intercept Beijingâs torch from runners, I believe those actions do not represent the whole and these protests were effective and essential. Having been an observer at the San Francisco protest, and having read much of the news surrounding the London and Paris protests, I question the validity of your claim that there were ânear-deaths on a number of occasions;â I did not see any news reports of ânear-deathâ associated with these protests. When I was in San Francisco, I was actually surprised not to see any physical altercations given the highly-emotional situation for many, and the thousands of demonstrators on the streets. I believe that this was admirable on the part of all parties, who were clearly committed to nonviolence in the exercise of their fundamental rights.
I also take issue with your deciding that those things you see as improvements in Tibet justify Chinaâs occupation of Tibet. Outside of your flawed and incomplete history of Sino-Tibetan relations, the issue of the occupation is not a balancing of the scales between human rights and other violations (including the deaths of over 1.2 million Tibetans as a direct result of occupation) and the benefits of highways and lower infant mortality rates. The issue is that Tibet was an independent nation which was invaded by China. Changes to the Tibetan nation (both the terrible changes and those debatable benefits) were thrust upon the people rather than evolving out of the Tibetan peoplesâ own autonomous decisions. This denial of Tibetan autonomy continues today, with Tibetans inside of Tibet calling for Rangzen (freedom), and Tibetans outside of Tibet calling for an end to the violence and dialogue with the Dalai Lama. We need to respect the voice of the Tibetan people, and as a world community we need to stand up for them together, as well as for the rights of others in China.
One thing I agree with: we need more dialogue both internationally and between individuals. This is a major goal of the Tibetan movement; that China will have meaningful dialogue with world leaders, above all with the Dalai Lama. Perhaps you could try speaking with a member of the local Tibetan community, one of the largest in the United States, about their history and their experiences living in exile. In the meantime, I am inspired by those who stand up nonviolently for human rights in this world, even if they appear self-righteous to some, or take advantage of a rare opportunity to bring about positive change for people of Tibet and China.
Madison will be hosting the Human Rights Torch Relay this Saturday, beginning at the Capitol Square at 11:00. For more information: www.humanrightstorch.org.
Anonymous (April 16, 2008 @ 6:04pm):
Good point. We've all made our own little human rights violations, so we might as well just shut-up and let the Chinese have theirs.
Anonymous (April 16, 2008 @ 6:05pm):
Wow. I thought that you'd make the argument that all citizens should expect more from their own countries as well as from China. Instead, you say we should ignore it all. Nice job.
Anonymous (April 16, 2008 @ 6:32pm):
Even when the question is China vs Tibet, the anti-Semites come to the same conclusion: blame Israel!
But this time it was worth watching just to see the comedy. It's not every day that you get to see pacifistic Tibetan monks equated to the bloodthirsty members of the Palestinian death cult.
Anonymous (April 16, 2008 @ 6:55pm):
First of all, you can't compensate for freedom. PERIOD. Freedom is humanity's ultimate goal, worth dying for⦠you can't give it value in terms of infrastructure and economic incentives.
"A man who won't die for something is not fit to live."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
Second, how can you have the gall to compare Chinese-sanctioned genocide in Darfur with Israel? The Israelis are valiantly defending themselves against multiple hostile nations and terrorist groups whose common (publicly stated) goal is to wipe the Jewish people off of the face of the Earth. I would fight alongside the Israelis any day.
Anonymous (April 16, 2008 @ 8:15pm):
That's ridiculous. Why not just say that any country can do whatever it wants as long as it claims it's acting in its own best interests?
By your logic, Canada should invade the US -- after all, the US is infringing on their salmon fishing rights from their perspective.
And Russia should invade every country it used to occupy -- after all, their influence is lessening as those countries democratize.
And Iran should nuke the US -- after all, they just don't like us!
Seriously, who taught you how to use logic? Get your money back!
Anonymous (April 17, 2008 @ 2:15pm):
Yes, it's all about oil. But did China send troops there and kill 1 million innocent people? Justify what the United States did in Iraq before criticizing China.
"Realistically, no nation is in a position to judge another."
Do you also apply this notion to the USA?
China facilitates the genocide in Darfur, it's all about the oil I guess.
Anonymous (April 17, 2008 @ 2:18pm):
Talking about freedom. LOL. 95% of Tibeteans were slaves before 1949. Did they have more freedom at that time?
Anonymous (April 17, 2008 @ 3:31pm):
Did Nazi Germany have a right to act in their best interest? Cause that's line the fascists love, remember?
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
