Beijing Olympic Boycott Over Burma Will Only Alienate Chinese People
New America Media, Commentary, Xujun Eberlein, Posted: Nov 05, 2007
Editor’s Note: After the bloody crackdown on protestors in Burma, human rights activists, pundits and politicians the world over called for a boycott of the 2008 Beijing Olympics – pointing out the Chinese government’s “special relationship” to the Burmese junta. But commentator Xujun Eberlein says the Chinese government is not one to interfere in other countries' affairs, and maybe America should follow their lead.
Recently I emailed a relative of mine in China, asking how he felt about the suggestion that Americans boycott the Beijing Olympics because of the Chinese government’s support of the Burmese junta.
“Those Americans have a problematic attitude,” he responded. “They envy and fear China’s newly developed strength and wealth, so they are trying every way to find problems with China, picking bones from egg yolk.” He thought that China’s policy towards Burma was “totally normal,” and that it was the American reaction that was absurd.
This relative is an average man who works for a small business, not in any way related to the government. His response is quite typical among other mainland Chinese I spoke with. This point of view may be biased, but no more so than those calling for the boycott.
Some commentators have pointed out various reasons not to blame China for Burma’s problems, like the fact that Beijing has very limited leverage over the junta, that China is not Burma’s biggest trading partner and that very little is known about Burma to begin with – so blaming China isn’t really fair.
Also, it has been consistently Beijing's foreign policy to not interfere in other countries' affairs. Such a policy obviously does not meet the standard of many Americans who look at justice as something measured on a global scale. Still, judging from consequence rather than motivation, is the non-interference policy really that bad? Looking at America’s recent history in interfering with other countries – Panama, Kuwait, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Iraq and more – who can say whether our foreign policy is absolutely a better one?
So, if we should boycott the Beijing Olympics because of China’s non-interference foreign policy on Burma, should Beijing prohibit the American team from entering the Games on account of our invasion of Iraq?
If the hawks understand anything about China and Chinese people at all, they should know that boycotting would further alienate the majority of Chinese people from America and fasten their ties to the government. Some insightful economists have pointed out that, today, the legitimacy of China’s government is built on two things – economic growth and nationalism. The 2008 Olympic Games fulfill these ideals perfectly by stimulating national pride and speeding development in Beijing.
Americans tend to underestimate the power of nationalism in other countries. At the beginning of the war in Iraq, didn't many expect the Iraqis to be grateful to their American liberator? But why is nationalism so hard to imagine? As someone once said: “I might fight with my brother all the time, but my brother and I will stand arm in arm against an outsider.” Therefore, the ones who boycott the Games, not the Chinese government, have a better chance to become the enemy.
The Chinese government is also known for its hardiness against foreign pressure, especially when it comes from the United States. From the 1950s to early 1970s, the United States led an international isolation movement against China. The results? China simply ignored the outside world while suffering in turmoil inside, until President Nixon extended an olive branch in 1972.
Beyond Burma, there are more reasonable arguments against the Beijing Olympics. The total expense, mainly on construction, is in the tens of billions of dollars. This is on top of the direct hosting expense, which is estimated to be $2.4 billion and will be covered by income from NBC, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and marketing revenue. Given the fact that a mere $40 can support an entire year of education for a poor, rural child, how many children could get basic education if this money were spent on them instead?
A Chinese official reportedly said that “The 2008 Olympics Games may advance China’s GDP by 3 to 4 percent.” What he did not say, or even understand, is that such increase is on top of the already overheated urban development, at the cost of the rural poor. The gap between China's urban rich and rural poor is already huge, and rapidly expanding. The 2008 Olympics is only widening this dangerous gap.
Contributing more to the problem is the destruction of historical structures, local villages, and the environment in general, to make way for the very expensive new construction. But it's too late to stop such destruction now. It was something the International Olympic Committee could have done six years ago. Shouldn't you boycott the IOC instead?
Related Articles:
Banning China: How American-Style Capitalism Led to Toxic Products
Beijing Taxis: Ready or Not for the Olympics?
Chinese Bloggers Look Beyond U.S. Tariff
Page
1 of 1
|
User Comments
lorence on Dec 04, 2007 at 10:08:46 said:
Freedom is only a dream somewhere around the world. Don't ignore the cries of pain! Watch this video: stopnow100.webng.com
You can do something for Burma's people!
netzen on Nov 07, 2007 at 13:57:35 said:
First of all, China IS the Burma’s biggest trading partner and even more so for armements and army furnitures.
Secondly, not meddling with ohter countries affairs is a good politics which I support, but then who believe that China is not meddling in Burma and in Tibet ??? And in South Mongolia, in Xinjiang and towards Taiwan ???
Trying to fool people and treat them as stupids is a habit that works well in China but is not working over here.
gus on Nov 06, 2007 at 10:42:27 said:
Human rights, Burma and Darfur are definitely good causes and the threat of a boycott is something that China will take seriously probably more so than any other nation. If it moves her to act positively on these issues it is worth making the threat even though the Burmese generals are unlikely to be swayed by China or anyone else for that matter to loosen their grip on power.
Capitalist China was always going to be a greater global and regional threat than when she was Red, all that greed and consumerist materialism, base human instincts being encouraged and nurtured at the expense of nobler social instincts. She could in her own interests certainly be a positive influence, something she could rightly be proud of.
Ken on Nov 06, 2007 at 10:34:10 said:
Forget about what ethic background you are. Is it right just to kill hundreds of people because they want to make a living and feed their own family? The Burmases people are just voicing their own though and want to make a better future for themself, what is wrong with that?
So if your mother or child is standing in my way in meeting with my client, I can just push them away. Or if I am driving, I can just run them over and keep on driving. Hey, I am just doing what my boss say. "Get me the contact sign by 3pm or else you are fire." My GOD. HELLO. Something is clearly wrong in this picture here.
Don't think about the big picture. Don't think about which ethic you are. Just think about what is right and what is wrong. What you should do and what you should not do. It is that simple.
Ne Min Naing on Nov 05, 2007 at 20:07:02 said:
China is making good money off the closed markets in Myanmar. Why should it be told that flooding the market with its goods is a problem? China has fell in love with capitalism; no other country has made more profit off the poor boy (Burma) like China has made. That's how capitalism works. It takes advantage of the poorest sucker around and finds a way to squeeze more profit. Long live China's capitalism! Down with Communism! Hooray for China! Orwell's Animal Farm Lives!
MichelleH on Nov 05, 2007 at 16:24:00 said:
This is not a political issue or debate. China is responsible for providing the arms and support the militia use in the ongoing genocide of the Burmese people.
They don't get involved because they don't want to. China makes money off the heroin trafficking, trade in/out of Burma. So cut the crap.
People who care are spreading the word: Boycott the Olympics in China where human rights violations are horrific; even if the Chinese prefer the head in the sand position. Better to say to them: we are sticking it right back to ya.
gus on Nov 05, 2007 at 12:00:10 said:
It's rather unfortunate for the Chinese that the Olympics has become the target for all those states as well as groups with some kind of beef with their govt. Though it does seem unfair to pick on the Games it's such a sensitive and irresistable target to pass over.
Also it's not true that the non-interference in internal affairs principle has been strictly adhered to, particularly in relation to Burma. China made an exception in 1967 over the violent anti-Chinese riots in Rangoon when the Cultural Revolution spilled over her borders. She poured in both men and materiel in aid of the Burmese communists. Why can't she do the same in aid of the democratic opposition today if she really cares about the long term stability of her neighbour, not just short term gains, and lasting goodwill of the Burmese nation?
SUE on Nov 05, 2007 at 10:28:02 said:
I support the boycotting of the olympics not just because of Burma but also because of the Chinese explicit support for Sudan in the case of GENOCIDE in Darfur. And lets not go into the symantics of whether Darfur is or is not Genocide.
DAVID:
And you know if anybody has a problem with the U.S. or U.K. in relations to Iraq or anyother issue you disagree with, then start your own boycott. If you feel passionate about the war in Iraq being so wrong then Boycott the UK olympics.
backhandpath on Nov 05, 2007 at 07:21:17 said:
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
The Communist Party of China is the main arms supplier to the illegal junta raping Burma and the #1 customer for Burma's natural gas. To state that the Communist Party of China is not intimately connected to the junta in Burma is laughable at best, painfully naive at least and dangerously disingenuous at its worst.
The argument that sanctions effect the people of Burma is spurious as the people of Burma receive NOTHING from the targets of these sanctions--the junta receives ALL the profit of Burma. The sanctions are targeted at the illegal junta and their criminal partners.
Please check out the Burma News Ladder and page through the articles.
The Beijing Olympics is set to open at exactly; 8:08pm on 8-08-08---20 years to the day that the junta massacred 3000+ Burmese in the last brutal Democracy Smack Down 8-08-88.
8-08-88~~8-08-08
David on Nov 05, 2007 at 03:47:59 said:
UK with USA invided Iraq and killed a lot of Iraqi civilian. Why nobody talk about boycot UK 2012 Olympic? Why give UK 2012 Olympic in first case? Those people want to boycot Beijing's Olympic are either racist or jelousy. 2008Olympic is not only Chinese Govt's game but 1 billion Chinese game. How you guys in one hand talk about human right but in the other hand want to take away of Chinese right to have the game? Your westerners are hysteric.
Reality on Nov 05, 2007 at 03:23:25 said:
Return the black hills to the Lakota!
bon-bon on Nov 05, 2007 at 03:11:23 said:
If China wants to play a role of "Respectable State" on the world's stage, it should allow the United Nations Security Council to deal (peacefully) with the most oppressive regime in the world ,who has taken 53 million Burmese as hostages (for 45 years) with impunity, misusing China as their shield in the UNSC.
JGomez on Nov 05, 2007 at 02:55:38 said:
"Xuxun Eberlein said the Chinese government is not one to interfere in other countries' affairs". (referring to Burma's inhumanities caused by the military junta)
Just a couple of weeks ago China wet her pants in a tantrum because President Bush welcomed the Dalai Lama in his home? so who was interfering in somebody else's internal affairs? What has the Dalai Lama's business with China got to do with America? Why China got upset and terrible offended?
If China really believes in non-interference then the US business with the Dalai Lama should not affect her in any way because in my house I am to welcome whoever I want to at the same time I am to offer a helping hand to solve disputes around the neighborhood because I care. Does China Government cares about the physical pain of its people? because that is what it is happening in Burma and that is why we need your help to save those starving unhealthy people.
By the way, apart from asking your relative did you ask one of the poor farmers from away the city? Afraid of their response?
Editor on Nov 04, 2007 at 10:53:09 said:
I do agree with your conclusions about the Olympics and the IOC. We should be looking at how the olympics have become a megalithic capitalist endeavor that really entails a lot of negative impact to the little people.
-->But, I do have a quibble with the idea that China is not interfering in Burma's internal affairs. They explicitly support one side in a conflict with many parties. They sell them weapons, which put the opposition at a distinct disadvantage, they are developing dams and natural resource extraction projects that profit the junta and negatively impact the indigenous people in these areas. How could building a dam that displaces 10,000 people in order to export electricity be 'non-interference' in a country where the government is trying to eliminate and assimilate the ethnic minorities? They are doing the junta's dirty work for them.
If they truly believed in non-interference, they would stop supporting the government and make the playing field level, so all sides could fight fairly. The United States, for all it's moral posturing, has had far less influence and interference in events in Burma than China has. China's "non-interference" seems to lay with an ironically heavy hand on the citizens of the nations they do not interfere with.
Screw the United States - do the Chinese people not care at all about their own neighbors?