The political Olympics

Here's a link to the piece I did for the Register on the politics of the Olympic Games this year. Knowing me I'll watch too much of the Olympics as usual, and mostly enjoy them despite the venue. I think I understand the thinking of the IOC in awarding the games to Beijing -- encourage China to have a debutante moment as it joins the family of modern and (we cross our fingers and hope) nice, responsible modern nations. I think the mainland regime miscalculated, thinking it could keep doing the don't-interfere-in-our-internal affairs bit without arousing too much protest. Tibet put paid to that, but it wasn't going to happen anyway. They're just too blatant and clumsy in their repression and they don't improve matter by always waxing indignant. Doubt there will be a boycott (except for the meaningless open ceremonies), but the political points have been made. Wouldn't mind seeing more non-violent torch challenges.

Will a Beijing boycott work?

Here's a pretty good column by Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, arguing that the protests that have developed around the Olympic torch and threats to boycott the Olympics scheduled for Beijing in August not only won't work but are likely to have the perverse effect of stiffening Chinese stubbornness and sense of self-righteousness. I wouldn't be surprised if he's right that private pressure discreetly applied might be more effective than "face-destroying" public protests. Nonetheless, I hope the public protests continue. There's almost zero chance that anything will induce the Chinese to give up their claims to Tibet this year or any foreseeable mid-range future year. But the Chinese think in terms of decades and centuries, and the protests, especially if combined with a meeting with the Dalai Lama (unlikely in my view despite Zakaria's hopes) and a gradual reconsideration of the costs and benefits of continuing to "Sinify"Tibet could lead to a relaxation of controls and perhaps even more autonomy. Institutionally it's the Communist Party running things, but at this point they're much more pragmatic then ideological.

Here's a pretty good piece by journalist Don North that might help put some of the Tibetan issues in context.

Trouble in Tibet

Here's a link to the Register's editorial on the crackdown by mainland China in Tibet. Bloody and tragic. The editorial makes a point I haven't seen made elsewhere, namely that nation-states can sometimes be downright insane when it comes to the lust for control over territory. Tibetans are ethnically distinct from Han Chinese, and while it paid tribute to some Chinese emperors in timess past, it was essentially autonomous because of distance, and for most of the 20th century because of troubles in China that were something of a distraction. The Tibetans hate Chinese rule and give the Chinese nothing but trouble and grief, and there's no economic benefit to China from controlling Tibet -- quite the contrary. Hanging on to Tibet wrecks China's image in the world, which for the first time in a while it cares about. If Chinese leaders were thinking rationally they'd let Tibet (and Taiwan) have uncontested independence, ridding nthemselves of headaches. But they're in charge of nation-states, which tends to reduce one's IQ by at least 50 points.