I just found myself speaking to Stargelman in the chat, and we were talking about the revival of the marijuana thread. And I remarked I was surprised there weren't any more threads popping up about politics and such. As always, Stargelman made an excellent remark "Start one!"


Why not.

Ok, I'm sure either all of you, or most of you have been following the recent events surrounding the upcoming Olympics. Just about every news site out there, newspapers, radio and tv has all had their say what they think should happen. What participating countries should do, what the Olympic committee should do etc.

I'm very interested to hear what you think should be done.


I'll start with myself.
Frankly, I don't think China should have been awarded the Olympics in the first place. I see it as some type of reward, the honor of being allowed to host the Olympics and all the benefits and such that brings with it. I'm very much against it being given to a country who violates human rights, and so much more, especially when it's done on the level on which China is doing it.

But that's in the past, China does have it. So now what? Well a boycott is one option obviously. It would send a very clear signal to China, especially in light of the recent events in Tibet and the way the protests have been put down. But perhaps the best way IMO that is, is by combining it with some basic demands. A demand for reforms both regarding Tibet and human rights and the likes with the consequence for non compliance being a boycott, either a total one or a partial one of the Olympics.

While I realize this would be quite a drastic measure, with many consequences, many of which likely can't be overseen on a short term basis, I also find myself leaning towards the saying "Drastic times call for drastic measures".

This might be the best chance the International community has in many years to really influence China, and if they pass up on it, I feel it was be a great shame and perhaps even an aid to injustice.
I'd like to quote my own signature for this "All that is needed for evil to triumph, is that 'good men' do nothing." While the quote deals with more total ideas then might be involved in this case, I do feel it accurately describes how I feel about it.


Well, that's my opinion, please, discuss, disagree, agree. I look forward to reading it

Here is an interesting take that appeared in the New York Times. I admit that the idea within has some appeal to me.

My take: It might actually be a good thing that China is hosting the Olympics. You know the saying, "Out of sight, out of mind," right? I think that putting China in the spotlight will put a lot of attention on the shortcomings of China's system--the athletes and tourists alike will hate the air quality, visitors will see how biased the press is, cultures will clash. I think in the long run this will be a good thing, even as China tries to use the event to trumpet its economic might.

Interesting issue. The arguments both ways are quite convincing - on one hand china is a fairly oppressive and unpleasant single party rule which has done some unpleasant things in tibet (with a good few open violations of the geneva convention): torture, forced sterilisations, ethnic dilution, culture disembly, extra judical executions etc. Not nice. (I was an english teacher in a tibetan refugee school in north India last year so I know a fair bit of their side of the argument).

But on the other hand without something happening they aren't going to change, perhaps offering them the olympics also offers a place among the more civilised countries as their economy rapidly grows. Such acts could well help catalyse change.

The protests are inevitable and probably nessesary, a boycott, however, is probably best avoided. The chinese government is a strange and unpredictable creature but such an insult would likely make things worse for the tibetans both as a sort of revenge and a reverse reaction to the potential improvments the olympics could bring. Equally well perhaps a boycott would send a stronger message.

Tibet (and the lower profile Xinjiang and occupied section of Mongolia) aren't the only issues with China. As well as civil rights abuses against its own people its an environmental disaster - currently it opens a new coal fired power station every week. But then are we in a position to lecture them? Perhaps not.

To be honest the arguments of the olymics are so divided because both sides have strong points and so it probably doesn't really matter. I doubt whatever happens over the olympics can make much if any difference. The only way to truely bring about change in China would be trade sanctions, its just a pity we require their cheap labour to keep our own economies going and can't afford any sanctions.

Its incredible how naiive folks are sometimes. China is Americas FRIEND. Very Good friends, as a matter of fact. So long as America benefits economically from a situation, we look the other way. America doesnt care about Human Rights, we've been violating them since 1776.

Of course we got that from the british, who were just in the middle of their human rights violations setting up cash crops in africa, indonesia, india, and china. Which of course uproots local crops, and the product of the cash crops benefits the occupier, not the occupee. In short, the West made all the third world countries.

So now we come to China. Do I think they have committed Human Rights Violations, sure. But they werent the first ones, and wont be the last. And for the rest of us to turn into johnny-come-latelys puffing up our moral chests and say: "He's Right! China, leave Tibet alone goddammit!" Is awfully hypocritical.

Besides, china has a population in excess of one billion, and the strongest economy in the world right now. Like it or not, they are the 800 pound gorilla, so other nations are going to tread lightly around them.

P.S. Sorry 'bout the necromancy on the Weed Legal thread.....

China is certainly not the world's strongest economy. It's been said that China has the greatest potential for economic growth, but there need to be significant changes for that potential to be realized. At the moment, China loses a huge portion of its budget to incredibly inefficient bureaucratic processes (nevermind corruption....). This is a central problem with the system, not China's technological capabilities.

What we are seeing now is that the old generation of Chinese leaders are making way for newer, younger generation, who can see the benefits of injecting a little capitalism into China's neo-Communism. This is a "carrot and stick" kind of government. You dangle the carrot (incentives for labourers, caused by a pro-capitalist shift) in front of the people, and hope they grab it, but any resistance is responded to severely with the stick (Tiananmen Square, Tibet etc.). Pardon the euphemism. Hopefully, with enough use of the carrot, the more forward-looking party members will come to embrace it (similar to Bukharin's support of the New Economic Policy of the Soviet Union in the late 1920s), and a more profound move to capitalism can be made.

Does this mean there is hope for China? Economically, arguably yes, but the oligarchy sitting at the head of China's government will still want to keep hold of power, which creates a difficulty. In Russia, the NEP had to be severely repressed for the full restoration of Communism by Stalin. The reason is that capitalist ideas can be quite profitable for a country with the financial potential Russia had (and China has). It's easy for a government to introduce small elements of capitalism, and then get in the habit of moving more and more in that direction, as a result of the consequential material gains. Then, when enough economic growth has been secured, any move back to more fundamental Communist principals likely faces the opposition of those people who have gained a certain amount of prosperity through capitalism. Thus this proves a threat for the oligarchy. China will be moving far more carefully than Russia did. It's not certain that the Chinese people will get any more freedoms.

With regards to the games, they may prove to be an opportunity for capitalism to manifest itself in China. I also agree with the poster who said that the "clash of cultures" could have positive backlashes in China. I'm not of the opinion that allowing the Chinese to host the games is in any way an endorsement, or "reward" for their slight warming up to the West. My personal opinion is that it is very unlikely that the games themselves could have any significantly negative political impact on China (although I am aware that the games have had a considerable economic impact), and so it is best to wait and see what happens.