IOC head calls for end of China hectoring

Politics International Politics
1

Finally, a rational voice stating what non-retards have known all along.

upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2 … ring/3423/

[quote]Published: April 26, 2008 at 1:41 PM
BEIJING, April 26 (UPI) – China should no longer be barraged with international criticism for its alleged human rights violations, the head of the International Olympic Committee says.

IOC President Jacques Rogge said the international community should cease all criticism of China, despite recent movement on the country’s part regarding talks with exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, the Financial Times reported Saturday.

“You don’t obtain anything in China with a loud voice,” Rogge said of such efforts.

“It took us 200 years to evolve from the French Revolution. China started in 1949,” he added.

China officially announced Friday it would hold talks with the Dalai Lama as part of an escalating crisis regarding alleged human rights violations in Tibet.

China had accused the Dalai Lama of orchestrating a number of violent protests in Tibet, events which have led to a number of protests against the upcoming Olympic Games in Beijing.

Rogge told the Times the Beijing Games should be good for the country’s social development.

“The games we believe, over time, will have a good influence on social evolution in China, and the Chinese admit it themselves,” the IOC official said.[/quote]

The highlighted portion was, in reality, the only original social/political intent in awarding the Olympics to China. This has somehow morphed into a supposed “promise” by China “agreeing” to political reforms before the Olympics, or wanting to “join” the club of Western society, or how China intends to turn the Olympics into some political “show of national glory.” All of that is utter bullshit. They are strawman memes created by the Western media itself – I’ve seen it being built up with my own eyes in the last year or so.

2

Even if it’s true that the IOC’s “original intent” was for the games to be a good influence on China, that’s no reason for everyone to toe the line. Many people, myself included, don’t believe the games should have been awarded to Beijing in the first place. I welcome any media reports that go beyond the fluff to take a hard look at what’s going on in China. You can be sure that Chinese media does not.

3

[quote=“zeugmite”]Finally, a rational voice stating what non-retards have known all along.

upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2 … ring/3423/

[quote]Published: April 26, 2008 at 1:41 PM
BEIJING, April 26 (UPI) – China should no longer be barraged with international criticism for its alleged human rights violations, the head of the International Olympic Committee says.

IOC President Jacques Rogge said the international community should cease all criticism of China, despite recent movement on the country’s part regarding talks with exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, the Financial Times reported Saturday.

“You don’t obtain anything in China with a loud voice,” Rogge said of such efforts.

“It took us 200 years to evolve from the French Revolution. China started in 1949,” he added.

China officially announced Friday it would hold talks with the Dalai Lama as part of an escalating crisis regarding alleged human rights violations in Tibet.

China had accused the Dalai Lama of orchestrating a number of violent protests in Tibet, events which have led to a number of protests against the upcoming Olympic Games in Beijing.

Rogge told the Times the Beijing Games should be good for the country’s social development.

“The games we believe, over time, will have a good influence on social evolution in China, and the Chinese admit it themselves,” the IOC official said.[/quote]

The highlighted portion was, in reality, the only original social/political intent in awarding the Olympics to China. This has somehow morphed into a supposed “promise” by China “agreeing” to political reforms before the Olympics, or wanting to “join” the club of Western society, or how China intends to turn the Olympics into some political “show of national glory.” All of that is utter bullshit. They are strawman memes created by the Western media itself – I’ve seen it being built up with my own eyes in the last year or so.[/quote]

In the age of google do you really think you can pull the wool over people’s eyes you ignorant troll.

Here’s what “rational voice” Rogge said in April:

[quote]BEIJING — The International Olympic Committee and China clashed yesterday over human rights and the protest-plagued Olympic torch relay. IOC president Jacques Rogge acknowledged that the Olympics have plunged into crisis, then pleaded with China to respect its promises on human rights.

But China immediately lashed back, demanding that the IOC refrain from “irrelevant political factors.” It also extended its security crackdown, arresting dozens of people in an alleged plot to kidnap foreigners and disrupt the Olympics.

The sharp exchange over human rights was a dramatic escalation in tensions between Beijing and the IOC, which had patiently avoided any direct criticism of China despite weeks of turmoil in Tibet and on the Olympic torch relay route.

The comments by Mr. Rogge, who was in China to meet with Premier Wen Jiabao to discuss preparations for the Beijing Games, were his strongest since the wave of Tibetan protests began last month. Up to that point, in fact, he had insisted that the IOC was powerless to exert any influence over China.

Yesterday, for the first time, Mr. Rogge referred explicitly to China’s unofficial promises in 2001, when its leaders proclaimed that its human-rights record would improve if it won the right to hold the Olympics.

“We definitely ask China to respect this moral engagement,” he told reporters in Beijing.[/quote]

4

This is precisely the kind of unthinking paraphrasing shit-meme that I was talking about, you ignorant fool.

What did Mr. Rogge say April 10, that the Globe and Mail (your article) refused to print?

[quote=“Jacques Rogge”]“You have to put yourself back in time to July 13, 2001 – 7 years ago – clearly and without doubt the bid of Beijing was the best of all presented – Beijing could offer what no other country could offer - the value of offering sport to one fifth of mankind”.

When pressed on the human rights issue Rogge said that while China did not sign a legal agreement saying it would improve human rights when it was given the Games, it made a moral one.

"The representatives of the bid have said, and I quote freely because I do not know it by heart, that awarding the Games to China would advance the social agenda of China, including human rights.

“This is what I would call a moral engagement, not a juridical one. I would definitely ask China to respect its moral intentions.”[/quote]

And here is what he was recalling, which he obviously reviewed in the meantime:

[quote=“7/13/2001, NYT”]In an obviously rehearsed portion of the news conference, Chinese journalists from state-controlled print and broadcast outlets were chosen to ask questions about human rights, pollution and sclerotic traffic so that officials could give their carefully planned answers.

‘‘We’re confident with the Games coming to China, they will promote the economy and also enhance all social sectors – education, medical care and human rights,’’ said Wang Wei, co-leader of the Beijing bid group.[/quote]

Do you see a difference between “the Olympics coming to China will promote improvements” vs. “we will improve things if awarded the Olympics”? I do.

Now, China has lifted reporting restrictions on foreign press bureaus in December 2006 to cover things related to the Olympics (and not just sporting events). Normally this would be a good chance to show the benefits of a free press to China, but you fucked up childish people still haven’t figured out how to do it? Perhaps it is high time that the foreign press report responsibly and truthfully, like they haven’t been doing during all of the Tibet incident since March. Instead even overseas Chinese are disgusted by the anti-China lies that have been pumped out lately.

If you didn’t believe the Olympics should have been awarded to China, fine, but the decision was made fairly, not as if there was bribing like unscrupulous Sydney for heaven’s sake. But if you want to wreck the party just to pout, that’s so… unsportsmanlike.

5

a large part of the process of arrival at the new beneficent China is dependent on better nations and more refined sensibilities calling them out… loudly, incessantly, and damn the egg on their faces.

Rogge is perhaps more scared of the bad press for the Olympics movement than really acting for concern for China, or maybe he has been promised a nice ‘settlement’ if he calls the dogs off.

congratulations to China for having come so far since the Cultural revolution. it’s only been 30 years, though, so one might have expected better progress, especially with the example of more enlightened practices in the rest of the world to follow. sure you have a big population, but you also have Confucius and an ugly corrupt party structure and a dedicated, state-ordained and designed lack of free press, education, and personal responsibility as your own albatrosses around your neck to blame for your difficulties.

i for one say bugger off, Rogge. This is why you gave the Olymprics to China, and now the heat has been turned on, you want us all to stop the game you started. the cat is out of the bag, the genie is out of the bottle, and the best we can hoper for is that China changes for the better without plunging us all into WW3 out of spite.

6

Did someone bring the popcorn?

7

[quote=“zeugmite”]
This has somehow morphed into a supposed “promise” by China “agreeing” to political reforms before the Olympics, or wanting to “join” the club of Western society, or how China intends to turn the Olympics into some political “show of national glory.” All of that is utter bullshit. They are strawman memes created by the Western media itself – I’ve seen it being built up with my own eyes in the last year or so.[/quote]

Im not sure where you are going zeugmite, the reason China had not previously won the right to hold the Olympics had pivoted on human rights as was the case for the 2008 bid. I think if you are claiming no assurances were made by China in regards the awarding the Olympics, I think you will find its an easy claim to disprove.

A day prior to awarding the Olympics Wang Wei, secretary-general of the official Beijing bid committee, said “ We will give the media complete freedom to report when they come to China…We are confident that the Games coming to China not only promotes our economy but also enhances all social conditions, including education, health and human rights.”

“By allowing Beijing to host the Games you will help the development of human rights." Liu Jingmin, Vice President of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games Bid Committee, April 2001Vice President of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games Bid Committee

“It will help promote all economic and social projects and will also benefit the further development of our human rights cause.” Liu Qi, the former Beijing Mayor & the current president of Organizing Committee for the Beijing Olympic Games, 13 July 2001

“We are convinced that the Olympic Games will improve the human rights record in China”, Jacques Rogge, president of the International Olympic Committee, April 2002.

8

we all now about the ‘legally binding nature’ of contracts in China.

there isn’t one.

9

Mick, I thought my prior post was amply clear already, but I’ll say more.

In the bid for the 2000 Olympics, Beijing lost by 2 votes – and Sydney happened to have bribed two African countries. IOC and Samaranch did not focus on human rights, who instead wanted to make a legacy of putting on the Games in a country hosting a fifth of the world’s population – makes sense really. China bidding for 2000 was also not nearly as economically competitive as when it bid for the 2008 Olympics, and that was a concern, too. Human rights was hardly a “pivotal” concern. Yes, there have been people complaining about China’s human rights ever since 1989, and they brought this up at during both bids, but they also bring this up every time China wants to do something. And just like all those other times and places, the IOC put aside abstract things like human rights, partly because they believe not shutting China out can only help.

Maybe they got this idea from the Beijing bid committee, maybe not, but it was a good point: having the Olympics in China will tend to promote social progress and human rights through openness and more exchanges. That’s a common sense sentiment that I agree with.

Now how is that a promise of anything, especially to make Tibet independent?

I’ll be even more clear, we’re not talking about here’s a list of political reforms we’ll implement in exchange for being awarded the Olympics; we’re talking about things that will come out of an organic process of organizing and hosting the Olympics, and its aftermath, of having the world visit and talk to Chinese people, of cleaning up streets, greenifying cities, smoking less, not spitting, learning English, etc.

As for the press freedom, as I said, in December 2006, the restrictions were lifted. The Economist reporter who was in Tibet during the riot was not even asked to leave before his permit was up, even though Tibet was not included in this reporting rule change.

10

Which is exactly why I believe the IOC got what it deserves.

First caring diddly squat about how things are handled from Beijing when giving China the Games (paying a bit lip service like “oh, we talked about human-rights, freedom of press and all of that too and they kinda promised us really” hardly counts for anything) and now getting whiney when Beijing does as it pleases.

Greed again trumping due dilligence - serves the IOC and any sponsor who joined them in the bet right.

11

… especially when you got to sell advertisement time. I definitely agree the Games were given mainly to China because of this ‘biiiiig Chinese market $$$’ thinking. I mean … it is the IOC which sells them out, correct?

I also agree with this one too. How Beijing does as it pleases when in a position of strength may be something known to anyone dealing with China regularly. Via the Olympic Games and the increase in exchange zeugmite stresses this has already been carried more into the mainstream. I don’t consider this bad at all. The more coverage China gets outside the ‘China experts’ sphere the better.

All in all I think everyone involved (I mean the IOC and China) pretty much get what they deserve, don’t they?

12

HA HA HA! IOC says: “Here, I took this lamp and gave it a quick rub. How the fuck do I get the genie to go back inside?”
What a stupid, stupid prick.
The IOC went for the money. Now it’s discovered just what a bunch of lying cocksuckers the Beijing wankers are, its trying to play damage control and coming up short.
Way to go, IOC.

13

A very very small minority of people in China will participate in any way in the Olympic games. I struggle to think what positive effect holding the games here could have for the average Chinese person. It will provide a transient rallying point for Chinese nationalism and that’s about it. The main reason the hoo-hah should die down is that it is making your average Joe, who couldn’t have given a damn about the Olympics or foreigners before, now think that all foreigners hate him personally because he is Chinese. Any attack on the CCP is portrayed as an attack on The Chinese People. This handy external enemy reinforces the One Big Happy China myth the government is at such pains to promote. The protests are forcing together in agreement on the hatefulness of foreigners people who would not otherwise have been fellow travellers. I can’t see any benefit to anyone in protesting against China at this point in time. If you’re trying to foment some sort of popular revolution then this is a piss-poor way to go about it. Divide them amongst themselves, blame the current leadership, and then provide a leader to reunite them and overthrow the government, replacing it with a credible and capable provisional authority. That’s the way to do it. Not uniting everyone in hatred of the West because monks are more deserving of freedom than people living 100 miles from Shanghai. These middle class oiks in London and Paris have spent too much time reading the Che and Fidel Cookbook for Parties and not enough on something like Lenin’s What is to be Done?

Bloody stoodents.

14

Even if it’s true that the IOC’s “original intent” was for the games to be a good influence on China, that’s no reason for everyone to toe the line. Many people, myself included, don’t believe the games should have been awarded to Beijing in the first place. [color=darkred]I welcome any media reports that go beyond the fluff to take a hard look at what’s going on in China. You can be sure that Chinese media does not.[/quote][/color]

The same could be said for any democratic country but what I find ironic is western media consistent efforts to misdirect the fluff.

15

The same could be said for any democratic country…[/quote]
Sez you. :unamused: I’ll take a New York Times report over a Xinhua report any day.

16

Your OP bemoans strawmen arguments. Has anyone ever suggested that awarding the olympics was in any way equated with Tibetan independence? Yet assurances were made in the run up to awarding the 2008 Olympics by the Chinese, human rights was an issue, even if you argue how relevant the issue was.

From a casual observers view, kicking out the press due to a crackdown on Tibetan protestors, is somewhat at odds to their well publicized promises. Having a few protesters booing the torch was to be expected under the circumstances (and did the Chinese focus or complement the host countries for all their efforts to protect the torch from a small minority, in difficult circumstances?)

To LL and how the Chinese are seeing this as personal attacks on Chinese. One only need contrast Taiwan, where no one feels offended by the protests of the torch, I regularly am requested by European or US companies to differentiate between Taiwan and Chinese companies. Since the Chinese view China and Taiwan as being all Chinese, if this behavior is accentuated, they must ask themselves, if Taiwanese are not discriminated against, perhaps it is not a question of race, but of politics instead.

17

No, I don’t see much difference in the two, unless you believe that improvements in society happen by themselves. There is no passive agent of change. The first sentence, in the context of the Olympic bid, is pretty much the same in meaning to the second.

In 1993, Beijing lost the bid most defininitely because of a concern over human rights abuses: Tiananmen Square was only a few years old but still fresh in western minds. The 2001 bid was only 11 years after Tiananmen. Not nearly as far away as today so there is no point pretending that the China of today is the same China that was in everyone’s mind 8 years ago.

Anyway, here’s what one of the delegates said at the time:

So clearly, as everyone knows, the human rights issue was a concern. Are you suggesting now that Beijing did not make promises to soften those concerns?

Well, they did:

[quote]
“I would like to mention that Beijing’s bid for the 2008 Olympics will do good. Every country has their own human rights problem and China will certainly pay more attention to human rights.”

– Liu Jingming, Vice-Executive President,

Beijing 2008 Olympics Bid Committee, April 2001. [/quote]

This was before they won the bid.

And more:

[quote]"I don’t say China has no human rights problem but we should see the development of human rights in China, the improvement in the living standards of the people.

Liu Qi, Mayor of Beijing, said in 2001, “The Olympic Games] will help promote all economic and social projects and will also benefit the further development of our human rights cause.” [/quote]

The quote from the press conference after the bid was won has to be seen in the context of IOC and western concerns over human rights abuses in China being assuaged by the bidding committees promises to improve those abuses. So clearly it was not a vague hope that somehow change would happen but a reference to obvious promises that things would change.

China clearly pledged to improve human rights within its borders if it won the Olympics. Or if the Olympics came to town. Clearly. No, they were not explicitly granted the Olympics because they promised to improve human rights, but promises made were important in swaying the committee. It doesn’t matter how you word it, how much you try to make the subject of your sentences disappear, the meaning is transparent.

So back to you. What obligation does China now have to upholding its promises?

18

But from 2001 till now, hundred of millions of individuals have been moved into the middle class with mark improvement their quality of life and human rights.

The issue here from the Chinese perspective, is the Tibetans deserving of more human rights as comparative to other minority groups within the PRC.

The second issue here is how much right do Westerners have in defining who are more deserving of rights within China’s borders.

China recently agreed to meet with the DL representatives. So it is not like PRC feel it needs to disregard outside opinions, unlike some countries where the protest occurred.

That’s because they are insulated from the whole affair. The torch isn’t even coming to Taiwan, because our fearless leader rejected it, like a panda bear, as an imminent threat to Taiwan’s sovereignty.

19

[quote=“ac_dropout”]But from 2001 till now, hundred of millions of individuals have been moved into the middle class with mark improvement their quality of life and human rights.
[/quote]

Then let Beijing make the argument to the world through a free press and not through chat room trolls. If true, it will stand up to the western (and anyone else’s) media’s scrutiny. Beijing only has allies to make by speaking the truth if it is as you say.

20

I think in another tread I already made the argument that it has not been possible in western “free press” because there exist innate biases. To which the Asian American got a response from an Afriancan American something along the lines of “suck it up.”

Race relations at its best in the US. :laughing: