STEPHANIE TANIZAR
Assistant Perspectives Editor
Human rights activists scaled the Golden Gate Bridge on Monday, reportedly part of the route that the Olympic torch would take on its one stop in North America. The three unfurled the Tibet flag and banners reading, “One World, One Dream: Free Tibet.” The torch arrived Tuesday, with hundreds of police officers on hand to prevent protests on the scale of Paris and London, where the torch was doused during its run.
China has been beleaguered by activists calling for Tibet’s freedom since riots earlier this year brought dissatisfaction in Tibet to international attention.
In late March, China brought a group of foreign journalists into the Tibetan capital of Lhasa to prove to the world that the Chinese government had everything under control. This backfired spectacularly when the group of journalists was ambushed during the government-guided tour by 30 Buddhists monks.
China had hoped to show that all parts of its sprawling nation was at peace for a reason: the Beijing Olympics. The Olympics stand as a global symbol of international goodwill. It is bound to bring much prestige both economically and politically to China, though its impact could be severely diminished in light of Chinese unrest, hence the hasty attempt to display a peaceful Lhasa to the international community.
The road to owning the right to host the 2008 Olympics has been a tough walk for China. As early as 2006, international disapproval has dogged the nation’s efforts. China’s passive approval of the Darfur genocide in its refusal to speak out against Darfur’s oppressive government sparked outrage from human rights activists around the globe, according to the Washington Post. Human rights groups began to bandy about charged terms like ‘Genocide Olympics,’ urging politicians to boycott the event in a more forceful show of disapproval.
Though the furor has largely dissipated since its peak, the stigma of a poor human rights record clings to China like mud on its feet. The issue remains unresolved, the large majority of its controversy swept under the rug so that it does not linger over the Beijing Olympics as a sour-faced specter. The path seemed clear of obstacles once again – until the Tibetan crisis re-emerged.
Since the 1950s, when China invaded Tibet to “better” the smaller nation, religious freedom has been virtually discrepant with the totalitarian rule imposed over Tibet. It culminated in the Dalai Lama’s flight from Tibet, and his subsequent exile, which is still in effect today. Tensions finally boiled over March 14, when Tibetan monks rioted against imposing Chinese rule. Though the Dalai Lama has cautioned that further violence would be tantamount to suicide, the Tibetan monks have struck out against China, disregarding their religious leader, according to CNN in March.
Despite their long history of unrest, however, the Tibetans chose this particular year to riot. This is not coincidence, in light of China’s very important date later this year. As in the Darfur question, all roads lead to the Beijing Olympics.
The bid to force China’s hand in light of the Olympics is an inspired one, drawing international attention to the dissatisfaction of Tibet. The increased pressure might induce China to actually accede to the Tibetan demands, and this might even be a good thing. Tibet was illegally annexed in the 1950s, and all assertions that Tibet remains autonomous are plainly false. China’s desperation to win international good will might work out for the better all around.
Thus far, there is no uniform course of action among other world leaders. Britain’s Prince Charles has no plans to attend the ceremony. German Chancellor Angela Merkel will be skipping the Olympics, while French President Nicholas Sarkozy’s attendance is conditional on China opening dialogue with the Dalai Lama, according to the Herald Tribune on April 7.
The question, however, lies in how far other international powers intend to go. Boycotting a Chinese function is one thing, but the Olympics stand as a standard of global stability and international friendliness. Moreover, the event represents an athletic landmark for all participants. It would be highly inappropriate for their work during the past few years to go unappreciated. A complete boycott is almost entirely out of the question.
A partial boycott, however, is not. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has strongly advocated this route, urging Bush to boycott the Olympic opening ceremonies, which start Aug. 8. Attending the remainder of the Olympics has yet to be seen, though Pelosi says it would be detrimental for American athletes to abstain from their events.
The partial boycott would serve the purposes of expressing the extremity of the issue to China as well as attendance at a major global landmark. Taking this route looks to be the best compromise, and one that should go a long way to appeasing the social conscience of the world.
04-10-2008