I cannot recall the opening ceremonies at the Athens or Sydney Olympics, maybe because I am a little ambivalent about sports in the first place. But the opening ceremony for the Beijing Olympic Games did get my attention — and everyone else’s. Given all the hype, the least anyone could do was tune in and watch.
So there I was in front of a TV, along with hundreds of millions of other curious people. The verdict: China put on a fantastic show. And the reaction in Asia was especially gushing. But while I may be in the small minority, I found the ceremony disturbing, to say the least.
It wasn’t only the martial significance of the drummers who started the show. That’s too obvious. And besides, they smiled a lot (though I found that disturbing as well). And I didn’t even know about the lip-synching by the little girl whose voice was actually that of another girl who “wasn’t cute enough,” or the manipulated fireworks displays in the televised production of the whole extravaganza.
It was the number of drummers out there at the start — more than 2,000, all beating drums with their hands and florescent drumsticks in perfect unison — that chilled me.
Thousands more performers followed onto the field to enact one massive choreographed display after another. In all, 15,000 perfectly trained performers took part in the ceremonies. Over and over, the Chinese showed how a few simple movements, performed by thousands of synchronized performers, can result in one massive, awesome display.
No other country could have achieved the same dazzling effect with such a massive assemblage of manpower. But that’s less of a virtue than it might at first appear. One has to ask why it was so important for China to create such an over-the-top display. What insufficiency were the Chinese making up for?
Only an authoritarian communist regime could summon the level of mass conformity required in such a production. The only country that still comes close is North Korea, although it would have to struggle mightily to harness a fraction of the technological sophistication on display in Beijing last week.
What I found particularly disquieting about the opening ceremony in Beijing was the mass sublimation of individuality in the service of the state. The conformity to script and attention to stage direction by a cast of thousands, while awe-inspiring, also represents a negation of creativity and self-expression. Of course, there is choreographed order in Western dance and music as well. But there was something about the Chinese government’s ability to stage-manage so many thousands so precisely that set this show apart from anything undertaken even by Cecil B. DeMille or Las Vegas.
No one would suggest that Zhang Yimou (張藝謀), the Chinese filmmaker who directed the opening night gala, or the other choreographers and artists involved were simply out to score a point for communism. But while the Chinese authorities wanted the Olympics to showcase a China that is industrializing, modern and prosperous, it unwittingly put on a display that recalled the Mao-era mass parades in Tiananmen Square, albeit with much advanced technology and pyrotechnics.
It is not easy to think of such a display as being in line with modern norms. The Chinese economy may be more market-oriented today than ever before, but because the Communist Party is still in charge, China remains out of sync with those parts of Asia and the rest of the world where communism has long since come to be viewed as an anachronistic oddity.
Tion Kwa, an editorial writer at the Straits Times in Singapore, is currently a Bernard Schwartz Fellow at the Asia Society in Washington.
Copyright: Project Syndicate/Asia Society
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing