Does China Regret Olympics?

It seems you cannot read a newspaper or spend more than a few minutes online without getting inundated with negative press on China and their Human Rights abuses. First it was political strife, the Tibet, then Human Rights abuse, then speech and protest censorship, then Internet censorship.. and the list goes on. The question we ought to be asking ourselves is, Does China regret pursuing the Olympics bid and then trying to use the Olympics as a coming out party?

The Spin: Press

Let's start out with the press who is hounding China on these claims of abuse. Obviously with all this coverage of the Olympics it wouldn't be complete coverage if they didn't cover China's government and their actions. That being said, China should have expected a historic retelling of their rise from 1959 to today. China also could expect, like Greece, before it that the press investigates every misstep and will sensationalize anything - especially civil strife - to create a good story. China hasn't exactly been apologetic, either. They can control their own press and information but not the foreign press and so they should have known that the boys down at FOX are always fishing for a Human Rights abuse scandal (as long as its not being perpetrated by Americans.)

Freedom: Where to go?

Where is China really in terms of Freedom? According to Freedom House, China ranks a 7 and 6 (with 10 being the worst) for Civil and Political rights, respectively. That's not so good. The good news is that for the first time since the Communist Revolution major reforms and overhauls are being done. That means a lot more economic freedom and then a lot more civil rights freedoms. The Chinese government isn't doing these things out of the kindness of their heart though.. or from outside pressures, they are changing their ways mostly due to a threat from civil unrest. So, on the "Freedoms" front, while things are not so great right now they are definitely heading in the right direction. A few to dos include: allowing opposition parties, freeing political prisoners, working on corruption in government, and effectively dealing/compromising the Tibet and Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Regions.

Subtlety or Bravado

The Chinese obviously were overjoyed when they received the Olympic bid but a lot of work was to be done. Back when the bid was awarded in July 2001 China was a long ways away from hosting a huge international event. The effort that went into getting everything ready early (unlike Athens) and then testing and retesting every little thing to make sure things went off without a hitch was really a herculean effort. That along with the amazing economic growth and cultural revitalization of China are note-worthy and admirable without a doubt. It is also clear that while China is straining just as hard as they can to show off their goods they are trying to be subtle in pushing their image. Subtlety however has never been a strong suite of the Chinese and what was suppose to be a glorious coming out party has become an explosion of Chinese Nationalism and an ever louder beating of the drum to the tune of China's growing military, economy, and influence.

Strong Moderate

Please share your opinions on this!

Georgia invaded by Russian Military

Save the Peaches.. ok, but seriously this is a problem.

Since the mid-nineties the break-away country of Georgia has been at odds with the Russian Empire Federation. The dispute has been about an region called Ossetia, whose people believe that they are more Russian than Georgian and thus use Russian currency and speak Russian. Since their call for independence from the newly independent Georgia problems have been brewing...

This flare-up should really send a message to the Global Community, especially the European Union, that "New" Russia is just "Old" Russia with a PR department. Remember back in the day (or perhaps you've just studied it, like me) when the ol' USSR would decide it needed to crush a thorn in its side it would just roll in the tanks and claim it was just taking care of a problem in its "sphere of influence" - that was the old way... The new style of Russian foreign policy is just a little tweaked but basically the same. Let's walk through it together:

1. Russian Leader wakes up... there are problems allover the place (mostly created by his own corrupt regime and mafia control)
2. Russian Leader decides that he ought to solve a problem, scare all his rivals at the same time, and give the people something to cheer about in a nationalistic way
3. Russian leader points the a surrounding country on a map where there have been some problems and tells his military leaders to invade it
4. Russian leader and his foreign ministry fabricate a story about said tiny country's efforts to "abuse" the human rights of Russians or "interfere" with Russian interests
5. (If possible) Tie that country in with the War on Terror
6. Issue strict ultimatums and impossible conditions and call it all 'diplomatic talks and failing to find a diplomatic solution due to a lack of cooperation on the opposite side'
7. Remind people that all Russia is doing is just protecting its people and their interests
8. Russian Leader waits for the opportune time (preferably while everyone else is watching some kind of global spectacle) to launch the invasion
9. Invade
10. Try to block out the news, deny anything wrong is going on, , and then ignore foreign criticisms
11. Repeat claims of protecting interests
12. Continue blasting the living daylights out of target country
13. At some randomly decided time: stop, declare victory, and have a massive military parade through Moscow

There you go! The "New" Russian model for invasions of neighboring sovereign countries. In the USSR you just had steps 1, 9, 10, 12, and 13.

The truly sad thing about this new Georgian incursion is that Russia has been harassing this poor little country for years including cutting off their gas and oil supplies. That's harsh! In the age of live coverage and hyper-media reactions it seems the Olympics have acted as an override switch to the news of hundreds, possibly thousands, of villagers and civilians being slaughtered by nearly round-the-clock bombings of civilian and military targets. The airports and roads have been crushed and a long line of at least two hundred tanks and armored personnel carriers have been seen entering the country according to recent reports but hey... I'd rather talk about Micheal Phelps or that Chinese hurdler! I guess Russia still knows when to orchestrate an attack when no one will care about some 'insignificant' country... sad. Very sad, indeed.

I will try to keep track of this story and keep you all posted if possible.

Whelp.. I guess I'll just sit around here and wait for the KGB to come and eliminate me. Until next time, please leave some comments for you comrade in arms.

Fareed Zakaria is wrong on Turkey

Fareed Zakaria and I are good friends.. ideologically. I love his book, The Post-American World, which you can (and should) purchase - from Amazon dot com for a heavily discounted price (40% off). As I was saying, he is one of the few political minds that appears on TV that actually makes sense most of the time and uses facts to justify his point, something sorely missed from most other commentators and pundits.

However.. he is just plain wrong about Turkey. Every time he gets the chance to talk about Turkey he does.. and he keeps complimenting them and showering them with his praises. I find all these adulation misplaced.

In his most recent talk on this subject he touts the Turkish Supreme Court ruling that disallows the banning of the ruling party based on their adherence to a religion. (Which I agree is good) Then he goes on about how all the Middle East could really "learn" from the "only Islamic liberal democracy." This is where he is exactly wrong.

Turkey, like France, are too secular to be democracies. Let me explain, just like Christianity or Islam can affect a democracy, state or society so can ultra-secularism. The cult of ultra-secularism treats religion not as an integral part of people's lives but as a threat to liberty. Now, there are some religious types who see the same of secularism but in a true democracy all people must be protected from both. Both the religious and secular wish to influence others with their way of seeing the world and it is the role of a true liberal democracy (of which Zakaria refers) to allow both options to exist and not threaten the other. Neither side should over-power the other without the protections of the State and both view-points should exist within the marketplace of ideologies that exist within these liberal States.

Therefore, it should not be the place of the governments of France or Turkey to allow or disallow any amount of religiosity on the part of an individual or group either by overt or covert means. There is nothing that is inherently anti-French or anti-Turkish in wearing a scarf, yarmulke, or cross. Both countries especially Turkey are guilty of betraying their pledges to liberalism when they take secularism to an extreme where it infringes on the liberties of people to express their beliefs. This is a problem in the Western World that is continuing to create problems as immigration and the free flow of information change the structure and nature of societies throughout the world. Just as Religious Terrorists throughout the world strike out against secular targets, so does the ultra-secularists strike against any overt sign of religion.

Fareed Zakaria, my friend, now is the most important time for liberal democracies to exist in their truest form so that they may be a model of tolerance and peace between parties in the face of extremism and totalism.

Strong Moderate

Please Feel Free to Share Your Opinions!!


Links:

The Post-American World - Fareed Zakaria -- Amazon.com

Zakaria: Islamic world should learn from Turkey court ruling -- CNN.com