As August approaches, there is no sign of a letup in pressure on China to honor the promises it made in return for the distinction of hosting this year’s Olympic Games. Those pledges, made with little sincerity, have since proven an invaluable foothold for Chinese activists and international organizations.
But one voice has been remarkably quiet on the guarantees it solemnly accepted seven years ago — the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which has deftly avoided pressing Beijing on its commitments in public view.
But this weekend, IOC president Jacques Rogge triumphantly broke his silence to praise improvements in China and crow over the Olympics’ “catalytic” role. His statement was complacent and disrespectful of the scores of Chinese activists who, unlike himself, have dared to push the envelope, refusing to let their government forget its promises.
And while the IOC would, in speaking out, risk only offending Beijing, the Chinese lawyers and nonprofit groups who publicly appeal for concrete change put no less than their careers, their freedoms and their family members’ freedoms on the line.
In Bucharest, Rogge said on national TV on Saturday that China’s openness over the devastating Sichuan earthquake last month showed evidence of the benefits of the upcoming Olympics.
Rogge has had nothing to say about the unyielding crackdown on Tibetans — a crackdown that has now turned into a witch hunt for troublemakers. He has likewise been reticent about restrictions on foreign media in China, which includes not only limitations in Tibet, but also unwavering barriers to meeting blacklisted environmental and social activists countrywide.
If Rogge feels that commenting on these events does not lie within the IOC’s role, neither should he step forward when the opportunity presents itself to offer a positive assessment of individual freedoms in China. This inconsistency, designed to be ingratiating to Beijing and the international community, represents a blatant rationalization of so-called Olympic principles.
In reality, the credit for keeping pressure high on Beijing goes to people like Yang Chunlin (楊春林), who was sentenced in March to five years in prison for collecting thousands of signatures from disgusted, displaced villagers accusing the authorities of caring more about Olympic glory than human rights. Such campaigners have made good use of the media ahead of the Games.
China’s response in the wake of the quake, which killed tens of thousands, has indeed displayed more openness than in past crises. With the world’s eyes bearing down as never before, China is not willing to risk being caught in a humiliating web of lies a la SARS.
And with tens of thousands of mourning friends and families — and a vast Internet-savvy population — claiming a trivial death toll this time around was not a viable option.
“You will see,” Rogge said on Saturday, “that the Olympic Games will change China.”
The Games have the potential to precipitate democratic reform, he said, adding that August will see “revolutionary” media freedoms.
The Olympics could have a lasting effect on Beijing’s administration of the country. But should this happen it will be in spite of, not because of, help from the IOC.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS