Tibet, Beijing and Olympic Sponsors: To Boycott or Not
I have been working in Shanghai as an ad man since 1998. I have also been privileged to enjoy a courtside seat as China gears up its infrastructure and emotions for the Beijing 2008 Olympics. I am also a "official" torch bearer, slated to carry the Olympic flame 200 meters sometime this summer, somewhere in the Middle Kingdom hinterland. Until recently, the Chinese have been eagerly anticipating their epic coming out party. Pollution? Not to worry, locals say. The government will ensure "blue skies" by shutting down factories. Traffic? Again, no problem. One thing the bureaucrats know how to do, they say, is manage logistics.
The Rumbles of "Policitization"
Now, however, the specter of Tibet, international opprobrium and potential boycotts, both political and commercial, has created an undercurrent of anxiety. As yet, no one is predicting anything dramatic -- for example, a major country forbidding its athletes to participate in the Games. However, the recent stridency of Big Brother propaganda accusing Western media of anti-China bias -- it's reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution brainwashing -- suggest that tension is mounting and the masses are being prepared for a less-than-glorious bow on the world stage.
As a American raised with an unshakable belief in the righteousness of Western values and institutions -- the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; universal human rights; bottom-up representative democracy; and efficient capital markets -- I instinctively empathize with the impulses of the protesters. However, as someone who has lived in China for almost a decade, sometimes frustrated by the lack of a fully developed civil society but often inspired by the ambition and heart of the Chinese nation and people, I believe that both governments and corporate sponsors should -- no, must -- continue to support the Games. True, Westerners have a responsibility to express their displeasure, even anger, regarding the PRC's frequent failure to live up to its responsibilities as a member of the international community of nations. However, these grievances should be productively channeled and expressed with a full appreciation of China's fundamentally different world view.
The Chinese World View: Cyclical Determinism
What is that world view? The Chinese want to be modern; they want to be "international." But they are not becoming, and do not want to become, "Western." Unlike Americans and Europeans, the Chinese are morally relativistic (but not amoral or immoral). They believe in fate and maintain a cyclical view of both the cosmos and human events. In the Chinese universe, an intricate structure where everything is connected and yin morphs inexorably into yang and then back again, the only constant is change. Therefore, if there is any moral absolute, it's the near-sacred belief in the supremacy of stability and order. (Mao remains a hero, despite awareness of his "mistakes" because he unified the nation after 100-plus years of foreign domination.) In this context, the Tibetan imperative has, in Chinese eyes, little to do with human rights or respect for indigenous culture. Rather, the recent protests by the monks represent a threat to "unity," the most important bulwark against the disintegration of the motherland and chaos across the country.
Moral relativists are also pragmatists. China is blessed with an expansive, albeit ethnocentric, world view and a supremely realistic appreciation of its strengths and weaknesses relative to other nations. The Chinese government and people also boast a unique ability to absorb the influences from other countries and apply them in a domestic context, one with both challenges (a huge population; a lack of systemic checks and balances; widespread poverty in the countryside) and opportunities (a gigantic production base; an ambitious population; a consumer class with critical mass; "faith" in the wisdom of the central, but not local, government). The Chinese know they need to integrate themselves with the rest of the world and do so in a manner that does not unsettle a stable geopolitical order, one which made the country's gains of the past three decades possible. But they will insist on doing so in a manner that: a) suits China's distinct circumstances, b) reflects China's status as a equal partner vis-à-vis the West.
Why Beijing 2008 Resonates
A hot-headed "boycott agenda" - either of the Games themselves or the all-important opening ceremony -- by American and European activists and politicians would be, to say the least, unfriendly and, most certainly, counter-productive. It is impossible to overstate the importance of the games, to not only to apparatchiks but also the Chinese people. The country's emotional investment the Olympics is about more than modern China's debut on the world stage. It is more than an acknowledgment of the nation's rightful place as a budding superpower, soon shoulder to shoulder with the United States. It is even more than a confirmation of a new "glorious" era, the end of the eclipse that has enveloped China since the Opium War. The rise of an Olympics-worthy China validates the Middle Kingdom's entire worldview and confirms, in no particular order, the ebb and flow of history, the cyclical essence of yin and yang, as well as a renewed Mandate of Heaven. Beijing 2008 represents a vindication of Han culture.
In atheist China, the Games are collective spiritual balm.
On a personal level, individual identities are smothered, burdened by layers of suppressed expression. Chinese ego repression ensures that individual identities are linked to national pride. All strands of Chinese culture -- Confucianism, Legalism, and Daoism -- deemphasize the individual. Yet both Confucianism and Deng Xiao Ping's "to get rich is glorious" mandate put a premium on (state-endorsed) achievement. The vast majority of Chinese, particularly younger and wealthier ones, are caught between two mutually-exclusive goals: standing out and fitting in. Chinese ambition is restrained by convention. In this context, Brand China -- i.e., nationalism -- is seized en masse as the ultimate identity surrogate. Therefore, the Olympics reflect not only the nation's potential but also "my own greatness."
The Harsh Winds of Rejection
Therefore, a successful Olympics -- i.e., positive PR in both media and political circles, void of humiliation and lost face -- would yield a confident China, one less inclined to stir up trouble abroad and more likely to grasp the fruits of political and economic integration. And a successful Olympics would ensure that is haunted by fewer demons with no cause to lash out with its back is against the wall. On the other hand, if the PRC sees the world as lined up against it, the Middle Kingdom will not emerge from its self-protective cocoon. It will not look up and out; instead, it will, claws extended, shield itself from indignity or worse. And the consequences of such a defensive, self-protective crouch would make the suppression of Tibetan monks look like a walk in the park.
Everything from continued adherence to WTO regulations and constructive collaboration with North Korea to commercial reform and openness to human rights dialogue would take a huge leap backwards. And that would benefit no one, least of all the Tibetans, a people who have only recently begun to emerge from crushing poverty.
The Corporate Sponsorship Question
Corporate sponsors have nothing to be ashamed of and should maintain their support. Indeed, most should be proud of their efforts to develop holistic strategies which benefit both the bottom line and the development of China and its people.
Johnson & Johnson's "Golden Touch, Golden Mom" elegantly fuses universal mother love with a distinctly Chinese premium on "winning." But it has done more than produce a couple lovely television ads to push product. Its corporate responsibility efforts, from sponsoring neo-natal care units to supplying medical equipment to backward villages helps make Chinese children healthier, better able to contribute to society. UPS is contributing its logistic management expertise to ensure smooth operations during the games. Both Adidas and Nike are, through sponsorship of the Games and athletes, respectively, are promoting a sporting culture driven by ground-level participation and joyful release, not the edicts of a totalitarian behemoth. And TOP-sponsor Lenovo is spreading the fruits of information technology throughout the countryside as it conducts the Olympic Torch Run, with the nation cheering along the entire route.
Of course, corporate sponsors -- and government leaders -- must defend themselves against simplistic (yet understandable) accusations of using Beijing to sell product at the expense of human rights and international fair play. They should: a) leverage back channels to convey legitimate Western concerns rather than publicly humiliate a nation in which lost face is equated with diminished status and limited negotiating flexibility; b) promote dialogue with the Dalai Lama, a generous but strategically-challenged leader who does not, in fact, to promote Tibetan independence but, rather, cultural autonomy; c) Initiate PR campaigns that anticipate the concerns well-intentioned protesters, highlighting the business community's role in nudging China to evolve into a modern, responsible state; d) remind the world of the progress that China has, in fact, made in: forging a more (albeit still far from satisfactory) rule-based society, implementing corporate governance reform, lifting millions out of poverty and dramatically raising life expectancy. Meritocratic "corporate diplomacy" has driven much of this and, by the way, represents the freest form of self-expression, both in the workplace and through advertising.
Real Progress, Whether We Want to Admit it or Not
It's worth noting that China's young generation, at least those kissed by the winds of economic reform, is the most hopeful on the planet. Even amongst Western critics, that should count for something. Optimism is underpinned by faith that their strong central government will protect the nation from instability and lubricate the gears of progress. Whether we want to believe it or not, there is no push for bottom-up representative democracy in China. Yes, the middle class wants its economic interests promoted; they want to know that property rights are protected. Yes, the masses hope an independent judiciary will emerge to check the power of corrupt local bureaucrats. But the vast majority of Chinese supports the government; thirty years of centrally-orchestrated economic progress has yielded real return. And personal liberties have expanded dramatically; there are 200 million netizens who express opinions relatively freely, as long as the third rail of organized dissent is not touched.
No, the standards are not the same as our own. No, their cultural orientation is not "individualistic." And they have a long road ahead of them, rife with challenge, frustration and disappointment. But the Chinese are making progress in their way and by their own standards. In the meantime, their ambition, audacity and scale of their miracle continue to impress anyone who visits the Middle Kingdom - Americans, in particular.
A culturally tone-deaf boycott of Beijing 2008 would do more than slight the Communist party. It would reject the aspirations of 1.3 billion Chinese souls. And that could destabilize the 21st century.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Americans that purchase communist chinese good from WalMart and other sources support the Chinese military with their dollars.
If you don't like what China is doing, boycott their products. Not enough Americans can boycott the olympics to make a difference. KIck them in the wallet instead
BOYCOTT!!
There is far more at stake at this time in Our history then the current aspirtions of soem Athletes- sorry Kiddo's- but If not US then Who , If not NOW Then WHEN? When they are ingrained in our own society? Human Rights is a Global Issue. Not a Game , far too much has been allowed to happen so far. If Pulling Out will get a International Movement Going tehn We Must!
It's not "some athletes!!!
It is THOUSANDS of world's athletes: the best of the best who trained and sacrificed for this one time shot to compete in front of the entire world! Many trained their ENTIRE lives for maybe 15- second long chance to measure their prowess against best of the best. The modern Olympic movement is one of the most inspiring and miraculous developments of modernity. If you don't get--bugger off and go watch baseball.
We've seen moral relativism here in the Bush administration while you were gone. We don't like it and it is certainly no defense for the Chinese government. You obviously are proud of your connections to Chinese totalitarianism and you depend upon it for your livelihood, a rather luxuriant one I'm sure compared to the average Chinese. I believe this is known as "bias". Thank you for your propaganda on behalf of one of the world's most oppressive regimes. Enjoy your little scamper carrying the torch as it seems more important to you than the ideals of being an American.
Before the economic reforms started in 1978, China had a centrally-planned economy where there was nothing to buy. All basic necessities were rationed. Anyone going into private business was arrested and sent to reeducation camp. It was truly a bleak totalitarian region. Fast forward, 30 years later, people like Tom Doctoroff have helped to contribute to constructing a competitive market economy, where consumers now have a high degree of choice over what products to buy, and there is now a need for companies to do advertising. (Perhaps you can be cynical and say it's substituting one form of propaganda (government) for another (multinationals) but that's another story.) When reforms began, there was no private economy - zilch. Today, about 70% of China's economy is in the private sector http://en.
Esprit, ah Voltaire, one of the absolute great thinkers of any century! and your phrase--
moral relativism
is very near what a psychologist friend of mine refers to as moral pragmatism. Developing a moral code that reflects the circumstances rather than defining the circumstances through your own beliefs. Can something be a slippery slope and terminally flexible at the same time? And yes, the propaganda machine was going full tilt on this blog, wasn't it? I'll look for your posts from now on.
Giving China the opportunity to "showcase" their society, while thousands, if not millions, still have their basic human rights trampled upon? The Western world says nothing because of the sheer size of the Chinese economy? Let them feel isolated -- they don't want to join the rest of the world, they want to use us while playing a completely different set of rules. Athletes, don't go there! Sponsors, don't advertise there! Spectators, don't spectate there!
"Cyclical Determinism"? - perhaps the cycle is determining that China is not yet worthy to be rewarded and celebrated by the rest of the world.
Are you trying to isolate China? Or are you really just sealing yourselves off from China? America is not "the world"! There are more people in China than in North American and in western Europe combined? Which side deserves more to be called "the world"? It is time for America to join "the rest of the world", and stop "playing a completely different set of rules". Play the right "set of rules"-- the Chinese rules, alright?
mouse, let's not forget that a big part of that economy relies on the continued purchasing power of the people of this country, which, as we speak is headed way south. When we stop buying second rate, or even harmful, crap from the PRC, their economy won't be worth spit, and when push comes to shove and the US pulls a Brazil and refuses to pay their all too imaginary paper debt to the Chinese bankers, either because we can't, or won't, then you will see a huge crash in Asia led by China.
sunblock, magisterloony, johanson, and mukluk, may all be the same agent provocateur, or a team tasked with gang-blogging any article like this one. You can't take them seriously as their "facts" don't withstand scrutiny and their bias is so obvious that it turns off most folks who read them--which is actually pretty funny and a good thing.
We may all be slaves to the Financial Elites of Old Europe, and it grates on me to know it, but when these youngsters come out in droves to tell us how China will rule the world, well, I just have to laugh. They have a hard enough time with little Tibet, and those old European Money Guys are much tougher and playing them like a fiddle.
(Continued)
Third, personal rights and freedoms are regularly trampled beneath the foot of a very strong central government. Recently a "civil rights" advocate was imprisoned for five years for suggesting that civil rights were more important than the Olympics. The charge was subverting the government. For such a strong central government I can not understand why they refuse to even allow a dialog with anyone critical of the government.
Finally, the scene in which the Olympics will play is more like a stage play than reality. Beijing has been remodeled, repainted, and rebuilt in an effort to present a good looking city. Factories will be closed to encourage clean air and blue skies. Traffic will be truncated to allow for smooth transportation. The citizens have been instructed in table manners. Fines for spitting have been put in place. Taxi drivers have been required to learn English. Everything will look good for the games, in Beijing. But what about the rest of the country? Sorry, the rest of the country is not the stage on which the Games will be played.
Boycott the games? I think not. But see them for what they are, China's way of presenting the image they want the world to see. Unfortunately, not an image of the real China which would be much more interesting and much more worthy of respect.
Living, you raise some credible factual points regarding repression and civil abuses, and yet the response you get from the troll, below, is an ad hominem (look it up in your English-to-chinese dictionary, troll) attack rather than a refutation of your facts. Typical. I guess what he's saying to you is that they have relatively healthy and moderately well fed slaves, who don't enjoy the same freedoms that even the poor starving Indians have.
I remember an American some years ago who said, "Give me liberty or give me Death" I'm thinking that most folks would prefer that to imprisonment for thinking.
Well, a lot of what was said in the article is, I think, correct.
However there are many things I disagree with.
I have been in China for five years, teaching in universities north and south and I think my observations are fairly accurate.
First, the number of Chinese who care about the Olympics is no where near 1.3 billion. I would submit that the 800 million farmers care little or nothing about it. They know about it but it will have no impact on their lives.
Second, the central government is attempting to suppress all dissent, an impossible mission. There are a lot of unhappy people here and although most of them express no interest in politics they do have a keen interest in the economic state of the nation. The growing upper class, in and of itself, is a good thing. Still, the poor are realizing little benefit from the booming economy and the number of poor is HUGE. Granted, the rampant poverty of 30 years ago has been virtually eliminated (People are no longer starving to death.) but the divide between "factory owner" and factory worker" is both pronounced and growing.
Typical Western Lao Wai comment. Surely, an academic should have possession of basic tools of analysis. Anyone who cared to look can compare the despicable condition of the indigent of Pakistan and India (the world's biggest bourgeois democracy) with relatively benign conditions of China's poor with universal access to education, medical care and staple foods. The modern Communist Party (post- Gang of Four) has performed MIRACLES to safely guide Chinese society towards openness, greater prosperity and national stability.
So please consider looking past your Western petty bourgeois sensibilities.
You try to be so dismissive and superior as a way of covering the weaknesses in your argument. We already have enough arrogant mindless drones running our own government without you doing the same thing on these boards. If America and the West disgust you so greatly, why not just return to wherever it is you are from and continue your good works there.
Oh, and a tip: Using the phrase "petty bourgeois sensibilities" exposes you for what you are: A very modern 19th century thinker!
This part you have right. The Olympics are only a coming out for the middle and upper classes.
The poor rural populations will watch with curiosity, but will feel little or no nationalistic urge like the emerging capitalist urbanites.
Unless you are a total hypocrite, all those calling for a boycott of the Olympics must immediately call for a boycott of the U.S. The transgressions committed by the Chinese against Tibet would all fit on the head of a pin compared to the death and destruction wrought by the Americans in Iraq.
So Mr. American, you condone what is happening in Tibet? How did the chinese get control of Tibet?
If China and the chinese are so wonderful, why not renounce your citizenship and seek chinese citizenship.
By the way, how is the open and free internet over there? Your own country is going to hell in a handbasket and you are worrying about the chinese?
Give me a break.
You can access Huffpost from China, but any calls you make to the US will be monitored by Dick Cheney.
Yes, as I recall Yahoo really stood up for the little guys there, right?
Thank you for your point of view.
Whether anyone boycotts the Olympics or not, China is going to be trouble for the rest of the world in the 21st century--especially the United States.
Thank you for maintaining the American Imperialist viewpoint.
Communist China is a peacefully developing nation. China spends less on their military than US spends on GI rations . It seems that economically strong and peaceful China scares you. Ever considered that your personal inner fears chain you to negative thinking? Consider contemplation to become a more confidant human being.
Tell me again--when do the Chinese people get to be free?
Something that might be of interest:
http://nin
"I have been working in Shanghai as an ad man since 1998." You should have continued with " And here's my ad for the Chinese communist dictatorsh
Did you even read the article you ignoranous? The Bush administration itself hasn't been that far off a dictatorship for the last 7 years. Grow up.
Hey, you're right about Bush, but he's right about Doctoroff and China!
I'm glad that my fellow westerners have had a chance to put their ignorance on display.
After your done ranting about how bad the Chinese government is, perhaps you could take a break from your inexpensive Chinese assembled PC and watch a DVD on your inexpensive Chinese assembled flat screen monitor using your inexpensive Chinese assembled DVD player.
Clue: You've supported the Chinese government for years through your decadent purchasing.
Re-read this author's article. He's offering you an insight into the challenges you face if you want to change what you've helped create.
I partly agree with you, however, I have to point out some important information. Do you know American corporations obtain the majority of the profit, almost eighty percent, created by chinese manufacturings? Some stats shows that chinese factories only get average 1 dollar per 8 dollars, because most of them are low level manufacturings or they mostly rely on the technique from western countries. So stop to call yourselves as victims! Stop blaming the debt on China or chinese corporations!
The Chinese have been brutalizing the Tibetans since the 1940s. Now they've built a tram in an attempt to turn Tibet into a tacky sort of Chinese Disneyland. Also, they've encouraged Chinese businesses to become established. All this will certainly destroy the Tibetan culture, as is the Chinese aim.
I give the Chinese credit for being clever - in the last few days, Chinese Party Hacks dressed up as Tibetan monks for the World Press. Luckily, this was exposed by the real monks, who are probably being beaten and tortured at present.
I will not watch one minute of the Olymics - hold them somewhere else.
Its seem it's people like you, Marko, that want to keep Tibet isolated as a Spiritual Disneyland: never mind the crushing poverty and extreme isolation. Only Western tourists benefit from that.
But Tibet is a part of China, and with the train operating the medieval Tibet is finished, for better or worse. Are you saying that Chinese cannot open business in their own country?!
All world governments INCLUDING Dalai Lama's recognize Chinese sovereignly over Tibet.
Does Tibet deserve autonomy and protection for Rinpoches, lamas and the monasteries?--Of course! The sooner the better.
But I hope China sells some of the Western debt they're financing. This will make everyone shut up real quick.
Nothing like watching interest rates go up to 20 %APR for everyone to completely forget about China.
"Its seem it's people like you, Marko, that want to keep Tibet isolated as a Spiritual Disneyland: never mind the crushing poverty and extreme isolation. Only Western tourists benefit from that." by MajisterLudi
From what I can determine, Tibet was never a "Spritual Disneyland," but a place of great spiritual importance, with Tibetan Spritual Masters like Milarepa - although that time has been past for centuries. However, Tibetan Buddhism continued to have a positive influence there and there never has been a valid reason for the Chinese to want to destroy it by turning it into some sort of Disneyland on bad LSD for Chinese tourists to snap pictures of - or to exploit it in any other economic manner.
Although Chairman Mao had the right idea regarding lifting the Chinese out of abject poverty in the late 40's and 50's,he made a mistake by deciding to crush the Tibetans during that era. And why did he do it? I think because he was Chinese and the Tibetans were not.
People tend to identify with those who are similar to themselves and can get downright murderous with "outsiders
It seems the Dalai Lama is trying to work out the best possible solution, given the circumstances.
"But Tibet is a part of China,..."
The Tibetans would disagree.
The central government policy on Tibet absolutely needs to change -- but keep in mind that the cultural destruction you have seen in Tibet has happened ALL OVER CHINA -- traditional culture IN GENERAL has suffered, much has been lost in the press for economic change.
But Tibet is part of China, has been for hundreds of years, except for a few decades in the 20th century. This will not change.
The Dalai Lama's middle way is the key. But he is not calling for an Olympic Boycott. The boycott is a bad idea, it will only hurt those you are trying to help.
You have an individual right to watch or not watch. But if you could see China, you would be amazed at what it is --- neither the good news or the bad news alone can define the whole.
"but keep in mind that the cultural destruction you have seen in Tibet has happened ALL OVER CHINA..."
Yes, that's true enough--they are equal opportunity bigots.
As for Tibet--you'd be surprised what can change.
"it will only hurt those you are trying to help." And this just sound like a flat our threat, to me.
I've never been to China but I have lived in Asia for a few decades, and I agree with the gist of this article. But unlike the author of this article I do think that the Games can be used for political leverage, if it is done in a timely manner and if the trade-off is an acceptable one for the Chinese.
For example, years ago environmental organizations threatened to give bad publicity to the Olympics if China went ahead with its plan to destroy all of Borneo's rainforests.
More recently there has been pressure for China to rein in the Sudanese government.
In both cases some results were obtained, because to the Chinese the success of the Games was worth the concession, and because there was no public loss of face. And so these actions were clever and useful. But China will never give up Tibet just to ensure the success of the Olympics. Nor will it be willing to lose face by giving in to a boycot threat. A boycot will do nothing for the Tibetans and only create hard feelings all around - in fact it will make life more difficult for the Tibetan people who will be blamed for the failure of the Games.
So we should cool it and see how we can work out an agreement which does not cause loss of face to anyone.
China will continue its brutal occupation of Tibet, but nobody will lose face. Is that the best we can hope for?
don't put the enormous responsiblities on your shoulder!
Loss of face is just a another way of saying 'embarrassment', and the Chinese have a lot to be embarrassed about. There's no reason for the west and other countries to take part in an Olympics which will be more or less a Potemkin Village set up by the Chinese for the world to gawk and smile at. It seems everytime Chna goes off the mark, we're warned to shut up because we might embarrass the Chinese. Not any more though. Although there's no concentration camps in China where people are put to death en masse daily, the China Olympics might as well be the Hitler Olym[ics of the 30's. I wonder if Doctoroff would have taken part in that farce as well.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
