Beijing Olympics: Successful PR or a Revealing Spotlight?

When Beijing was awarded the Olympics back in 2001 it marked the beginning of a new atmosphere of hope. For the Chinese there is a feeling that a new era is beginning. To the Chinese the Olympics marks a chance to show a strong, progressive, international China to the world. International observers have also felt this hope. Hope that the increased spotlight will put pressure on the communist government to improve human rights in China. Many continue to maintain this faith but recent events have proved such optimism is not necessarily universal.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has recently rejected criticism of their decision to award Beijing the Olympics. IOC commission chief, Giselle David has stated that, "(The Olympics) will allow the world to take a look at Beijing and the wider Chinese society. We see that as positive - and think it will engender a stronger understanding.” Indeed the world has been taking a closer look at Beijing. Yet, some do not feel the there has been enough improvement. What’s more, on the flip-side, such international scrutiny may exacerbate Beijing’s oppressive nature . With increased international focus, the communist regime is even more motivated to silence it's dissenters. In the run up to the games there have been reports of greater stops being put on media freedom and an increase in arrests and forced evictions².

The most contentious issues with the Chinese government in recent months have undoubtedly been Darfur and Tibet. Many have critised China’s dealing of arms to Sudan and inactivity regarding the crisis in Darfur. This was the root of China’s first Olympic snubbing when director Steven Spielberg withdrew as creative advisor for the Olympics. Speilberg is just one of many influential voices in Hollywood criticizing China on this issue.

More recently, the people of Tibet have decided to seize the opportunity to use the Olympics to bring publicity to their plight. Furious protests have erupted and frantic politicians in Beijing have angrily cast the Dalai Lama as being the orchestrator behind events. The Dalai Lama maintains he does not not condone violence but refuses to criticise the uprising, which has been the first of this magnitude in over twenty years. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House of Representatives, has since challenged Beijing to provide evidence to this claim.

So far the protests in Tibet have been the biggest threat to a smooth Olympics for China. Feelings of previously dormant resentment have bubbled to the surface both home and abroad. Already protests have interrupted the torch lighting ceremony in Greece and even murmurs of boycott have been coming from French president Nicholas Sarkozy among others. China have recently attempted to satisfy international critics by inviting a limited group of previously banned journalists to Tibet. Is it too late to make amends? Either way China is now a country with enough clout not to be regarded out of hand by America, which continues to lend its support to the Olympics.

But taking a more optimistic stance perhaps the IOC was right. The Olympics may possibly be a positive catalyst for change in China. However there is a good chance it will not be the kind of change the autocrats in Beijing had in mind. There is a possibility that the greater international attention and events in Tibet will embolden dissenters. Just as they had in 1989 when thousands of protesters gathered in Tiananmen square.

Desperate to avoid such a possibility, Chinese premier Wen has insisted the Olympics are not about politics.. But the Olympics are, and always will be, about politics. As lovely as may seem, the Olympics is isn’t just about sportsmanship and world peace. If you really think that, I’ve got a lovely piece of sea-front property to sell you in Tibet.

¹http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympics/7233924.stm
²http://www.asianews.it/index.php?art=1919&l=en
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/02/06/china17986.htm

Eco- Pirates call it a day.

The Sea Shepherd Society this week has finally decided to end their campaign of sabotage against the Japanese Whaling fleet and it’s flagship the Nisshin Maru. As the season draws to an end, they will be setting new coordinates for another mission aboard their vessel the Steve Irwin. It’s been an emotional month which has seen a deterioration of ties between Japan and Australia, and thanks to the additional efforts of Sea Shepherd, opinions on the matter have become far more polarized than they were at the start of the season. Though as far as Sea Shepard is concerned it was a success, claiming they have prevented the capture of an estimated 500 whales, but to what ends and at what cost?

Tensions have rose to a state of fever pitch on both sides of the whaling debate these previous weeks, with accusations firing back and forth as the violence has escalated. First came attacks with bottles of various chemicals and butter acid being hurled from the Steve Irwin, which then precipitated further action later when the Japan coast guard (which had come in aid of the fleet) was forced to retaliate with non-lethal flash-bangs or stun grenades. Soon after Sea Sheperd leader Paul Watson made to somewhat surprising claim that he was the target of a failed murder attempt by Japanese coast guards. These claims have since adamantly denied by the Japanese government and largely ignored in general.

The skipper of the Steve Irwin Paul Watson is also the founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, a kind of maritime animal liberation front, which formed after Watson split with Greenpeace in the 1970’s on the basis of their non-violent policies. Greenpeace have since been eager to distance themselves from Sea Shepherd who pride themselves on their tally of sunken ships and rarely shy away from putting human lives in danger for the sake of our cetacean friends, earning themselves the label of “eco-terrorists”.

However despite harsh criticism from groups such as their supposed allies Greenpeace, Paul Watson is convinced his mission is just and moral, attempting to evoke, by force, an Australian court order (ruled on the same day) upon Japanese whaling ships acting within the guidelines of international agreements . However the Australian government has also denounced Sea Shepard, with recent calls of condemnation from Foreign Minister Stephan Smith.

In their crusade to push the animal rights agenda forward, Sea Shepherd only seem to have hindered the debate against whaling, undermined international law, undermined Japanese sovereign liberties and isolated the Japanese who, quite rightly, feel they have been unfairly singled out as one of several whaling nations. The negative attention Japan has received has been vastly disproportionate when compared to the inhumanities perpetrated by many other industrial nations on a regular basis (including Australia). Even more disturbingly it has stoked some racist sentiments and attempts to demonise the Japanese. One only needs to browse Facebook to see a whole array of groups bearing titles like “F*ck off Japan” which are peppered with even more racial platitudes on their discussion boards. Yet, oddly enough there has little hue and cry over our european cousins in Norway and their planned whale hunt this year. The quota of which is 1,052 minke whales for the 2008 season. Instead Paul Watson and his crew will go to protest Canadian seal clubbers this month, but I doubt we will here much from the public or media to demonise the Canadians who, unlike the Japanese whalers, only kill for the fur trade.