If he were alive today, famed Chinese intellectual, reformer and Chinese Communist Party co-founder Chen Duxiu (陳獨秀) would be impressed by the technological and economic advances that China has made, particularly since the demise of Mao Zedong (毛澤東). “Mr Science,” a term he made famous, has been served well. If, however, in this Olympic season, Chen were to talk to fellow intellectuals who did not fear to speak out against the leadership — and there are few such people on Chinese soil these days — he would surely be disturbed by the fate of Mr Science’s supposedly inseparable partner, “Mr Democracy.”
For most people, the Olympics are not about the individual sports, because most are forgotten about until the next Games roll around. They are not about gleaming infrastructure and temporary urban beautification, nor about the corporate impact of Games sponsors, nor even about the daily pollution index.
For most people the Olympics are about spectacle and emotion in top-class competition. And meaningful competition requires fairness, discipline and mutual respect.
In preparing these Games, China has invested extensively in infrastructure and security and even run campaigns teaching ordinary Beijing people how to act in a more “cultivated” manner. But in the process it has exploited undemocratic means to mistreat Chinese people not deemed worthy of fairness, discipline and respect: minorities, the unemployed, evictees, religious groups, illegally disenfranchised landowners and all the rest. And Beijing has shown precious little sign that it will change any of this out of association with the Olympic movement.
China’s ghastly and disgusting support for the tyrants in Sudan, Zimbabwe and Myanmar, despite the conspicuous suffering in those countries, could have derailed the Olympics. Only a disaster on the scale of the Sichuan earthquake could have salvaged any sense of sympathy for the Chinese agenda.
The Games may proceed without incident, though it is notable that the government has leapt at the opportunity to publicize a threat from Muslim extremists largely outside the country to smear the legitimate concerns of the Uighur people in Xinjiang.
Well-meaning Chinese have dreamed that the Games could help show China’s true face and earn the affection and respect of foreign visitors and athletes. Sadly for them, the true face has been shown. It started with grim paramilitary goons in blue tracksuits accompanying the Olympic torch on its embarrassing tour of democratic countries. And now the Games begin with broken promises on press freedom and shipping in party members to forcibly replace ordinary Chinese hoping to see the torch relay.
The paradox of China, it seems, will endure: It demands congratulation and recognition from the “one world” of the Olympic slogan for its achievements, but refuses to accept criticism for its failures and its degenerate aspects. “No interference in other countries’ internal affairs” is the other slogan: China wants everything and will concede nothing.
The conclusion can only be that today’s China is, in spirit, the same China that Lu Xun (魯迅) parodied in the first decades of last century: insecure, petulant, hypocritical, cynical and oppressive, despite seemingly limitless potential. In some ways, China may be devolving as new wealth and old power join hands to defend the political status quo and oppose reforms that would benefit all Chinese.
The authorities therefore must mask their refusal to meet the basic challenge underlying the opportunity they were granted in 2001: showing the world that China can have a civilized government.
So, let the spin begin.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry