One China, One Nightmare
Lucy Boyle looks at why we believed China would change for the Olympics and how wrong we were.
China’s Olympic slogan amuses me immensely. ‘One World, One Dream’ seems to be the worst possible choice. As far as I can see, it has two potential associations and neither is positive.
The first is with China’s infamous ‘One Child’ policy. Now, I’m no marketing major, but I’m pretty sure most nations tend to keep their population control slogan and Olympic slogan distinctly different. Sure, it may only be a numerical association but even that is too much.
The second similarity is with the slogan ‘One China’. China is a communist country so, technically speaking, all of its people should be working towards one goal - the success of China. The use of the slogan ‘One World, One Dream’ reflects this communist mentality. However, after travelling through China it seems there are a plethora of worlds and dreams. They range from the world of the rich, entrepreneurs who dream of another Gucci bag, too the rural poor who wish to be able to feed their children. China is far from a unified nation with a unified goal. The Olympic slogan only serves to mock the real, disparate China.
Regardless of their choice of slogan, for the next two weeks all eyes will be on China. As people bound over hurdles, swim insanely fast and wade through the smog that is Beijing, the world will be concerned with more than just the medal tally. This years Olympics are bound to be a political affair.
The torch relay was marred by debate about Tibet. The opening ceremony is drawing closer and has led to a marked increase in the amount of media dealing with China’s economic expansion, environmental credentials, media freedom and social policy. From Taiwan to Tibet, from their World Trade Organisation membership to their stockpile of US currency – China will be under the international spotlight.
As the media delves more and more into China’s behaviour, the number of people asking ‘Why did we give them the games?’ has increased dramatically. The problems in China aren’t new. They never had free press, the government wasn’t moving towards democracy and Beijing has always been a pollution hot spot.
Why then, did we hand over the Olympics to the Chinese? One potential reason is our false-hope in the power of the market.
Market Fundamentalism
China’s economy is booming. Even if you live in a cardboard box you would know this. Most likely the cardboard box would be made in China.
Since 2004 the Chinese economy had averaged 10.6% GDP growth per annum. To put this in context, our sluggish economy averaged only 3% over the same period. Just to rub salt in the wound, China has managed to sustain this economic growth since 1979 and if it continues to do so, the Chinese economy is predicted to be larger than the American economy by 2050.
Most western economists and politicians believed that this growth would inevitably lead to political and social development in China. The IMF and World Bank also subscribed to this view, that the market will solve all.
These institutions believed that economic development would lead to higher income. This higher income would result in increased social mobility and pressure on the government to relax political and media controls. This social push would be exacerbated by an increased ability to travel and observe the freedoms enjoyed by other societies. This theory is what the Chinese mockingly refer to as ‘market fundamentalism’ and is one of the underlying reasons why we gave China the games.
It was unfathomable to most Western nations and institutions, that China could have sustained economic growth and continue to maintain their political control. It was in the context that China was granted the Olympics.
Has it happened?
In all fairness, China has taken some steps towards social liberalisation and media freedom. Foreign journalists are now allowed to leave Beijing and Shanghai without requiring the permission of the Chinese government. Lecturers are now allowed to teach students about the flaws in China’s economy and society.
However, these changes are no were near what was anticipated by the IOC when it handed the 2008 Games to the Central Government: political dissent is still not tolerated, protesters are arrested, dissidents are thrown out of the country if they are foreigners and advocates are denied visas if they wish to visit.
Human Rights
China made a plethora of pledges to improve their human rights record when they were haggling for the Olympics. However, little has been done over the past 7 years to improve the situation. Indeed, the Olympics have only exacerbated the problem. Resources have been diverted to the games and issues swept under the rug to be dealt with out of the media’s watchful eye.
‘The Olympic Countdown – Broken Promises’ is a report released by Amnesty International. It details the promises made by China when they were wooing the IOC and what policies have actually been put in place. The paper provides information on which causes have suffered from resource diversion towards the Olympics. It also outlines the house arrests that are occurring in Beijing in the lead-up to the opening ceremony. Those placed under house arrests include pro-democracy advocates, human rights lawyers and AID proponents. ‘Hostile’ journalists have been denied visas and potential dissidents have been denied entry to Beijing.
China dismisses the report and has kindly requested Amnesty International to “remove its rose tinted glasses.” However, Chinese pro-democracy advocates have endorsed the report and its finding.
The Media Mess
Part and parcel with the Olympics is intense media scrutiny. This media attention was a crucial justification for awarding the Olympics to China. International figures advocated that the Olympics would force China to improve its poor human rights record, engage in media reform and generally pull itself into line.
Instead, it hasn’t happened and China has maintained its iron fist grip on their media. The internet is still heavily filtered, with BBC and Amnesty International being carefully excluded from any google results. The only newspapers available are the official government papers, which included ‘articles’ that are 300 words long and reiterate the Chinese governments official stance on Tibet and the Dali Lama. If you happen to flick on a TV set around 7pm, you’ll magically find that every channel is broadcasting exactly the same news report.
Only recently, China refused to relax the internet restrictions for foreign journalists. Most foreign news services reacted with shock and outrage. I mean, really, whoever has heard of a totalitarian regime practicing censorship?
China’s media control is generally dismissed as an official government policy, imposed against the will of the Chinese people. Indeed, this is an easy view to adopt. It is much harder to believe that a nation would willingly accept media control and censorship.
I spent two weeks studying at Fudan University and it was only after travelling to China that I understood the degree to which media and government control has been entrenched in the Chinese psyche. People not only accept media and political control, they adamantly advocate that China could not survive without them. I was able to speak with lecturers and students and they all held a similar view, which hinged on the presumption that Chinese people could not deal with free press.
They believed that after so many years of ‘censorship’ they were ill equipped to decipher between fact and fiction and would be unable to process a range of different perspectives. They saw the government’s single sided news as integral to people’s understanding of what was happening in their nation.
To my questions about whether this limited media meant the government could omit unfavourable reports, many answered no. Lecturers and students a like believed that the media needed to report events in a timely and truthful manner if they were to have any credibility into the future. Without credibility, Chinese whispers would take over and the government would lose control. Many Chinese seemed to believe that this alignment of interests was sufficient to prevent the public from being totally misled by the media. If this view permeates beyond those I spoke to it seems unlikely that complete media freedom will ever eventuate.
We awarded the Olympic games to China as a result of our blind belief in the power of the market to solve everything. We have now turned around, shocked and indignant, when the games are imminent and China has failed to change. The global community failed to consider what has eventuated – that China’s growth would not necessitate social and political reform.
The IOC and world failed to realise that China was part and parcel with censorship, poor human rights and political control. It now has to be recognised that our ‘market fundamentalism’ may not always apply. .