There are people we do business with and people we invite to dinner. And there are countries we sign billion-dollar contracts with and others we welcome to the club of “civilized” nations. This seems to be the emerging philosophy of the West toward China. Politicians, celebrities and individuals with a vocal conscience find themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, they want trade and commercial ties with China, because quite frankly they can’t afford not to, but on the other, they feel squeamish and uncomfortable when they are seen to be supporting a government whose human rights record is below par. And of course, this applies not just to China but to a whole gamut of countries who have systems of government that are not quite the full flavor required by Western democratic palates but just happen to have wealth and natural resources which make them a natural and necessary ally. You can call it hypocrisy or you can call it pragmatism. It all depends on where you sit.
Human rights are important. In fact, nothing should matter more. We should all be endeavoring to ensure that our fellow citizens of the planet are well looked after by the governments under whose custodianship they happen to be living.
I think about human rights every day. I find I can only approach this subject from a deeply personal angle. I am acutely aware that as a woman living in the European Union, I enjoy rights, freedom, security and protection well beyond those enjoyed by women living almost anywhere else on the planet. There is a joke about Miss World contestants aspiring to achieve world peace. I would settle for all women to enjoy the same rights as I do.
The problem, I find, is how to translate this utopian striving into actions that make a positive contribution. No, not even that, just finding a way to be which does not promote, reinforce or worsen human rights abuses is often difficult enough.
The most important line to be drawn is between actions that make us feel better because they enable us to express outrage and thus stop us feeling that we are colluding with the oppressors, and actions that lead to concrete progress.
In an ideal world the two should go hand in hand. Sometimes they do, often they don’t.
When people take to the streets in Paris to protest proposed government policies, the French government can end up meeting the demands of the protesters. But — and this is an obvious point — we should not assume that what works in Paris — or London, or Washington — will necessarily work elsewhere.
There are many countries in the world where kicking up a fuss and shouting our anger can prove counterproductive. Though we feel better and look good for speaking up, in the final analysis our words and deeds can sometimes do more harm than good.
I am not arguing that we should keep quiet when we feel justified anger. Quite the opposite. I am all for it, I am just aware that all too often when applied to cultures or ways of being we don’t fully understand, the ensuing result is far from satisfactory. Achieving change in others is something that should always be approached with extreme caution.
But let us return to China. All the fury, fuss and chaos surrounding the journey of the Olympic flame, has provided those minded to do so with a long-awaited opportunity to flag up China’s human rights record. Well not quite; the emphasis has been on Tibet. What goes on elsewhere in China has received far less attention.
There are those, and I am thinking of the people on the proverbial Arab street, who complain that people are happy to kick up a fuss about self-determination in Tibet and yet just as happily keep quiet about self-determination in Gaza, to name but one. It’s a common refrain, one that can involve talk about conspiracy theories and certain lobbies.
Possibly there is some truth in it. Free Tibet is certainly a cool cause to wear on your sleeve. The Dalai Lama is an attractive and popular figure who has worked hard to build a celebrity following. But being good at public relations should not be held against the Tibetans. Quite the opposite; it provides others with an opportunity to learn how to garner public support for their cause.
The critical question is this: Will any of the protests, scuffles or righteous indignation of columnists make an iota of difference to the Chinese policy toward Tibet? I very much doubt it. As far as I can tell, the Chinese view Tibet as an integral part of a China that cannot and should not be divided. Tibet is to be brought into the whole by force if necessary, pulled into becoming part of a homogenous national identity of a country that takes pride in its national identity. Why the Tibetans would prefer to remain apart just does not compute into the Chinese equation. The Tibetans’ determination not to be swallowed up and assimilated is a cause which I whole-heartedly understand and support, but only a fool would think that protesters hanging banners on bridges and buildings and attempting to extinguish the Olympic flame will convince Beijing to do anything differently.
And what is all this about the Olympic flame? I find the whole spectacle of a torch being escorted by bodyguards, planes and helicopters as if it were a head of state rather obscene. Yes it is a symbol, I get that. But even if I bought into it being a symbol of sporting idealism that I don’t, could that justify a 21-nation tour?
Besides the Olympics as a whole is far too politicized and commercialized. Yes all big sporting events, particularly those where nations compete against each other, will by nature be politicized and commercialized. It is the nature of the beast, but when it comes to the Olympics, the political show dwarfs the sporting the event.
Perhaps we should focus on the sportsmen and women who have been training for the last four years for the chance to compete in Beijing this summer. It is unfair to hijack their event of a lifetime and turn it into a chance to score political points.
Those who should be particularly ashamed of themselves are the politicians who threaten to boycott the opening ceremony in protest and yet were happy to sign contracts and trade agreements with the Chinese government only a few months ago. Athletes who compete in the Olympics win an Olympic medal for their country.
They deserve the full support of their governments. Competitors did not choose the venue of the Olympics and they should not be made to pay the price for a decision they did not make.
