Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I've been watching the protests around the world as the Olympic torch makes its way toward China. My thoughts are this. First of all, I don't think the US should boycott the Olympics. I think that was a mistake in 1980 and I think it would be a mistake now. All that does is deprive hundreds of American athletes of a lifelong dream they've worked endless hours for (my friend Vinx had his dream destroyed in 1980 when he was on the Olympic team in the triple jump). And it doesn't do anything positive to make up for that.
But having said that, I'm happy to see these protests going on and I'm particularly happy to see them happening in so many different nations. I think that's very hopeful. I am always glad to see large groups of people stand up against oppression. Liberty lives first in our minds and when we casually accept its destruction for others, we let that flame burn out. So I hope the protests continue. It may not change the Chinese government, but it's still sending a strong message against tyranny.
Comments
I'm rapidly coming to the opinion that trying to interrupt the progress of the Olympic Torch should itself be an event at the next Olympics - it makes for a great spectator sport, by far the most entertaining thing on TV last weekend.
Posted by: philbert | April 11, 2008 9:34 AM
I would like to see politicians boycott the games, while the athletes still go.
Posted by: Donalbain | April 11, 2008 10:17 AM
Yes, the athletes should attend. What the protesters should do is encourage all of the people who are thinking of attending the games as spectators to not show up.
Remember, the main reason that countries host the Olympics is the economic windfall that the Games provide. China has spent TONS of money on building new buildings and refurbishing old ones (never mind all of the advertising, PR, and so on). If they had a low number of people attend the games, it would hurt them economically and send a message China couldn't ignore.
Posted by: Pokerwolf | April 11, 2008 10:46 AM
I am beginning to to wonder if the IOC did not know what they were doing all along. Yes, China will get some good press but it will be outweighed by criticism of a nature that will be hard for their government to sweep under the carpet. Yes, there will be economic gain but that is how Coca-Cola diplomacy works. It worked great in the USSR.
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | April 11, 2008 11:38 AM
I would love to see some sort of protests during the game. Atheletes wearing 'Free Tibet' armbands during the opening ceremony or on the medal stand. It would so make my day.
Posted by: Dexceus | April 11, 2008 12:18 PM
That would be awesome-that would be a far, far more effective form of protest than staying away from the games. Let the athletes go, but encourage them to be vocal about their opinions, wear t-shirts with messages, carry signs, etc. I'm actually all in favor of encouraging spectators to go, too. Economic windfall aside, that many people wearing armbands, t-shirts, carrying signs, etc. would send a pretty powerful message. The Chinese government wouldn't be able to censor enough of the footage to hide the protests, and just maybe enough of the Chinese people would gain the courage to protest themselves.
Posted by: mathyoo | April 11, 2008 1:33 PM
I tend to agree. What's more, it's contrary to the very spirit of the Olympics. In ancient Greece, they'd stop their wars for the games. Today, we stop the games because of our wars.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | April 11, 2008 2:10 PM
Did anyone hear or read the recent statements made by the governor of Tibet?
Via The Press Association:
This seems - if it were made by a governor of a province/state in a Western country - a ludicrous position. You are the governor of a province that has - for better or worse - a romantic place in the hearts of many Americans and Europeans. It is presently in a state of [controlled] upheaval; protests by the native people against what they still consider as a foreign occupier. The national regular military has already been sent in to quell the worst of the rioting. (Which would cause a massive uproar if something similar was tried in the United States with the regular military.) Why are you blaming the very internationally popular and charismatic exiled and politically powerless leader of the country that is now your province, as well as threaten anyone in your province who is exercising what many people in the Western world (who generally follow a similar model of human rights) consider their right to free speech with a crack-down which may well again involve the use of military force? One obvious reason is that you don't see it the way one might in the West.Two nights ago on the 10PM EST news show BBC World News America, the commentator said that China was more interested in national security than on its international reputation. This was the main reason that no one in the government would ever talk with the Dalai Lama - doing so would be seen as talking with an illegitimate head-of-state, and a concession of some sort of legitimacy. I suppose the fear is that the unpopular imposition of a Han-Chinese-based form of national identity upon the millions of non-Han peoples (a.k.a., "forced acculturation") would quickly devolve into chaos if the central government made any concessions in Tibet. A part of me is hoping that - as the time of the Olympics draw closer - more ethnic minorities start to protest throughout the country. (If it really got out of hand, it might be the first time that an Olympics was canceled by a host nation for a reason other than a World War. Tragic for the athletes, but I think that they can get over it, but well worth it, imho, if it means greater social and political freedoms for the Chinese people.)
However, one major thing that the Chinese government has working in its favor is its firm control over state media and information. If you look at stories covering Chinese national media coverage of the flame protests throughout the world, you will notice a disturbing trend - Chinese state media covers the protest story hours (if at all) after their first story of how great it was that the flame was making its way around the world.
Recently, the Australian PM, Kevin Rudd, gave a speech at Peking University and made some pointed comments in Mandarin when he went to China the other day. (Apparently, Chinese officials didn't like some of Rudd's comments.) Many of these were focused on China needing to be in harmony with the rules of the world to work toward utopia. (The speech linked to above is apparently a translation from Mandarin, and, as such, draws many allusions that work better in Mandarin than in English.) The fact that he spoke fluent Mandarin meant that his words couldn't be censored by translators, and could only really be censored by omission for later broadcast.
I only bring this up because if you talk with Chinese people - even Chinese nationals in the United States - there is a great defensiveness when it comes to any criticism of their government, or their "right" to hold the Olympics. The root of this type of sentiment may - I assume - be a result of the understanding that citizens not question the policy of the central government, and to unquestioningly accept the statements of history and policy that are fed them. (Ask a Chinese national you know how many wars China started since 1949, the state of human rights in China today, etc., and you are likely to get a very defensive - or completely uninformed - response.)
Going back to the issue of the Olympic flame and the Chinese government, I have to agree with Ed, in that I, too, am "happy to see these protests going on and I'm particularly happy to see them happening in so many different nations." However, I believe that so long as the Chinese government maintains control over all media and information, Chinese people won't understand why people are protesting. I believe that so long as Chinese people are disallowed from openly questioning their government, they will not understand why people are protesting. I also believe that so long as Western nations rely on non-Chinese speakers to deliver international policy statements in China that censoring their speeches will be too easy, and the Chinese people won't be allowed to understand why people are protesting. Finally, I agree with the statement from the BBC, that China is more concerned with its national security than on its international image. It will hold on to as much state control of the media, will attempt to limit the movements of the press during the games, and go back to business-as-usual after the games are over. All this means that - yes - the Chinese people won't understand why people are protesting.
Posted by: Umlud | April 11, 2008 2:34 PM
I have been to Tibet and still email friends from there some. I think it would actually hurt their cause if we boycott. The Olympic games have added freedom there that was not there in Western China in general. Things are different from what Westerner friends tell me. It is far better for the minority groups than it was 5 years ago.
With that said, I think that people everywhere should be protesting this. Free Tibet arm bands may end up getting someone killed. They do not play with that there in China. But there are ways to do it there at the games and around the world too leading up to it. I am glad to see a post on this. This is a religious freedom issue more than anything. But a real close second is ethnic superiority. The Han feel superior to the Tibetans and all minority groups in particular. This is a big problem considering that half of the land mass of China and I think most of the resources are minority occupied.
This is the thing to watch. It is like the Soviet Union right before Communism fell. It all fell apart and nations got their independence. I have heard that the Han are fighting it like hell. Some Westerners say it will never happen. I am not so sure they can hold on to these areas though.
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 11, 2008 4:04 PM
I do not support Tibet's attempt to secede from China. I don't see how yet another theocracy in this world is a good thing.
"This is a big problem considering that half of the land mass of China and I think most of the resources are minority occupied."
Minorities ruled China in many dynasties. Minorities aren't discriminated against; they can run for public office as well as any Han.
Posted by: Shadowin | April 11, 2008 5:12 PM
Foreign athletes should absolutely NOT use the games to protest the host nation. If they feel that strongly about it, they should stay home. One cannot discourage a boycott because of "the spirit of the Olympics" and then encourage those athletes who are guests of the Chinese people to spit in the faces of their hosts.
If the Chinese team wants to use their platform to protest, so be it. The rest of the World can embarass China the way Jesse Owens embarassed Germany.
Posted by: bullet | April 11, 2008 5:16 PM
I'm rapidly coming to the opinion that trying to interrupt the progress of the Olympic Torch should itself be an event at the next Olympics - it makes for a great spectator sport, by far the most entertaining thing on TV last weekend.
Kind of like competitive parkour, perhaps?
Posted by: Coin | April 11, 2008 5:35 PM
So, I think that it's great that people are using the Olympics in China as a way to get involved with and call attention to the problems in China. But I have to admit I find the specific calls for athlete/politician "boycotts" problematic.
The thing is it seems to me America is doing an incredible amount of stuff to support (and make ourselves dependent on) the Chinese regime, none of which has anything to do with the Olympics and all of which usually goes generally uncommented on. It seems like it would be really weird to spend decades integrating our economy to be inextricably codependent with China's, and then out of nowhere decide to take a principled stand of noncooperation over... the Olympics? And, one assumes, we'll go back to tacitly endorsing the Chinese status quo as soon as the Olympics are over.
Now, most of the people protesting here don't have any control over that status quo or U.S. economic policy, and protesting as the torch goes by or whatever is the most they can do to make a difference-- you couldn't really ask anything more of them. But Senators or Presidential candidates, say? They are in a somewhat different position and have a different set of tools available to them. If they want to try to make an impact on China's behavior, deciding not to attend a Basketball game is an awfully silly way to do it. The lesson would seem to be that we're willing to send a strong message when it comes to matters of trivial lip service, but not when it comes to matters which make a difference or actually cost us something to act on.
I just... I don't know.
Posted by: Coin | April 11, 2008 6:48 PM
I think first prize would be a LARGE proportion of athletes protesting at the games. Second prize would be a boycott (at least by politicians). The games going ahead is third prize because this WILL give the Chinese regime legitimacy and that's what they want.
Posted by: Michael | April 11, 2008 7:42 PM
I oppose boycott, in smacks of throwing the toys out of the cot when you don't get your way. The Dalai Llama himself supports China's right to host the games, and I am inclined to agreed; the games will garner kudos for the Chinese unelected government, but will also greatly benefit the people too. The games will bring thousands of reporters into the country, maybe that will also help publicise certain matters.
Having said that, I am a New Zealander and have been watching in horror as my country signs a FREE TRADE AGREEMENT with the very regime all of these protests are railing against.
I have never before had cause to be ashamed to be a Kiwi.
But I draw hope from the sheer temerity shown by Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia, who criticised China over their human rights record and Tibet occupation, in china and in perfect mandarin! Go Kevin, the Kiwis are behind you!
Who is Kevin Rudd I hear you cry? Here is a useful instructional video.
Posted by: John S | April 11, 2008 9:23 PM
The games should go on, sans boycott. And there probably should be no official demonstration of any kind. But I'd love to see, as others have suggested here, a protest by the olympic athletes themselves, without official sanction. if the athletes from each country were to agree to wear arm bands or ribbons on their jackets or some other symbol of Tibet and free speech when they march into the stadium for the opening ceremonies, the Chinese would have no choice but to air the video. Would they understand? Probably not, given their belief that all actions are at the direction of the central government. But with such a demonstration by the athletes, and one that could go on for the length of the games, China would know that most of the world disagrees with their practices.It might even make a small dent in Chinese perception of the outside world.
Posted by: Keanus | April 11, 2008 10:07 PM
Ed wrote above:
"Liberty lives first in our minds and when we casually accept its destruction for others, we let that flame burn out. So I hope the protests continue."
Boy howdy, buddy. You know, it shouldn't be hard to concentrate dissent on those who have earned it while concentrating praise on those who earn it in the 2008 Summer Games. Sure, the roughly communistic rulers of China are in a panic. Who would not be having acted as they have? They are like a tinker with only one tool in his kit. Probably a hammer. Or a stick.
On the other hand are the athletes and the myriad organizations that support them and help provide the facilities for training and practice and practice and practice and and getting better.
In a fair world I cast my support to those who choose to compete on a level field. And the referees have no clout off the field.
Give good cheer and support to those who earn it. Give none to those who demand it. One needn't do one to the exclusion of the other. Fair deal, square deal.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | April 11, 2008 10:25 PM
Keanus, the Olympic rules indicate that atheletes are not restricted in voicing their opinions on their own time. However, withing the confines of the Olympic village and the games themselves, including the podium, decorum is expected.
Put the Fickle Finger of Fate right up the butt of he who asked for it. Those who actually achieve, who actually set a new record, are worthy of our accolades. It is not important that a new record has been set in the long jump. But it is important that one person did it and that it is recorded as fact.
(Interrupted by call from daughter. Higher priority. Where was I?)
China is welcome to the Olympics and I'm sure the games will be a worthy exposition of human ability. As a state China may not in fact be worthy of hosting the Olympics, though their architecture agues in their favor. If they are not, perhaps they will learn.
And so it goes, Billy Pilgrim.
E Pluribus Unum
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | April 12, 2008 12:52 AM
Olympic Games are a white elephant actully. A small short term peak in the economy is usual due to the construction work, followed by a long recession for 2-3 years. Let China have the games, with bells on. Watch out though, the economic ride for the next few years could get bumpy.
As for Kev's speech (in Mandarin) the Chinses are already complaining about "interference in internal matters". China's leaders are, apparentlt, unable to seperate complaint from action. Still Kev's quietly using diplomacy to resolve the issue, despite China's displeasure at the message.
As for Tibet being a theocratcy, look at Butan. There an election is being held to determine the fate of thier monarchy. The unpopular king could but ousted, not by the bullet, but by the ballot. I would expect something similar would probably happen in Tibet, if it were to gain independance. However the more likely outcome would be Tibet would become more autonomous, it would seem unlikely that the Han chinese would want to break away from mother China completely. I can't see anything like this happening in my lifetime (OTOH I said just this about Poland, East Germany, The Baltic States & etc.) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | April 12, 2008 4:40 AM
"As for Tibet being a theocratcy, look at Butan. There an election is being held to determine the fate of thier monarchy. The unpopular king could but ousted, not by the bullet, but by the ballot."
The situations are totally different. Voting out a hereditary monarch in a constitutional monarchy (with democratic elements) is not the same as voting out a "God King" that is the Dalai Lama.
Posted by: Shadowin | April 12, 2008 11:43 AM
John S: I'm not sure why you find our recent trade deal so problematic. New Zealand has no capacity to influence world affairs in a y meaningful sense, and even if we did the Chinese government won't sacrifice its power regardless of whatever opporbrium is sent its way.
Isolating China won't make it more liberal, and might make it more like North Korea. The best thing for the world to do is engage with China. Trade has historically resulted in an exchange of ideas as well as goods. A trade agreement is actually our best hope of improving life for the Chinese people. After all, the US has embagoed Cuba for decades and Cuba is still the Communist dictatorship it always was.
Posted by: James K | April 12, 2008 11:05 PM
You've got the wrong idea about Bhutan if you think the king is unpopular. He's wildly popular - and in fact he and his father spearheaded the change from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy.
(If you actually meant that a later unpopular king could be ousted, well, it didn't read like that to me. But that is true.)
Posted by: cath | April 13, 2008 12:28 AM
The Dai Lama is a "Priest-King" in much the same way as in many other Asian states. In Japan the Emperor, and Thailand the King, is reguarded with god-like reverence, although these monarchs do not noramlly interfere with the day-to-day descions of thier governments.
Butan's king has a similar god-like status, however he does interfere with government. Indeed his father was loved by his people for trying to move toward a more constitutional style monarchy (very,very slowly and under enmous pressure from Maoist rebels in the eastern provinces). This movement was cut short by a mysterious mass murder by the Crown Prince in 1997(?). The king's brother then took over from the mortally wounded Crown Prince and declared a state of emergency and began cracking down on "rebels" (ie all that opposed his abolsute rule, including pro-democracy demonstrators), this hardly made him popular. Indeed some consider that he may have been involved in the shooting as a way to ascend the throne (personally I think this sounds rather like one Blackadder's "cunning plans").
His demotion to private citizen from near god-like autocratic power, by means of a ballot, might be similar to the demotion of the Dai Lama from political to mere spritual power.
This is more what I had in mind (remember I am NO expert on these matters) apologies if I was unclear -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | April 13, 2008 2:22 AM
DJ, you're confusing Bhutan with Nepal.
Posted by: cath | April 13, 2008 9:05 AM
Cath - in what way? - curious DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | April 13, 2008 9:29 AM
I cannot speak about Japan, but this really isn't true about the King of Thailand being considered "god-like" in the past 2-3 centuries. But I can see how an outsider might think that. Lese Majeste laws unfortunately still exist and are enforced sometimes (usually quickly followed by a pardon, unless the charges are politically motivated).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lese_majesty#Thailand
Sure, most Thais would show an unusual amount of respect to the King even without these laws... but that's mainly because Rama IX has been king for more than 60 years, is wildly popular among both the poor and the Bangkok millionaires. He is also a stablizing force in the normally volatile Thai politics, but the main reason for his wild popularity is that at his age, he's a symbol of everything Thai.
My personal opinion is that Lese Majesty laws in Thailand will start to become even less common after Rama IX passes away. There really is a push for the western concept of free speech rights in the cities... and the political party that recently won the elections, whose base is the rural poor, wasn't the one that was backed by the King and the military anyway... so once the respected King passes, the new king will have less popularity and influence, and will be facing criticism quite frequently if he tries to assert himself politically.
Posted by: doctorgoo | April 13, 2008 10:52 AM
Yes you are quite right, I only realised that several hours later, but had to sleep so I forgot to post a retraction. (As I said before, I'm NO expert, as you can see) :( DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | April 14, 2008 3:54 AM
Doctorgoo - really I did not know that. That's not the impression I got from Thai or Japanese, amittedly these are ec-pats. Anyway perhaps I have muddied that waters too much with my intial false comparision, I am simply hopeful of a peaceful outcome in Tibet. I think human-rights issues in China would possibly be solved using quiet diplomacy rather than boycotts. Still I agree a peaceful protest would put pressure on China (but at what cost after the media spot-light returns to Paris Hilton, or someother trival wannabe?). Hopefully regional leaders won't lose interest, then it will be "business as usual" in China.
Posted by: DIngoJack | April 14, 2008 4:09 AM