Beijing 2008

[ogb]

Guess this is the right forum as the controversy seems to be political although originally being sports matter. You probably all know what I want to ask: is Beijing the right choice for the olympics in 2008? Should the massive human right violations have influence on sport matters or - as some said - does it help to open China for the rest of the world?

[RayH]

Maybe the 2008 Olympics opens China up for the Chinese!

There is an assumption that the Chinese WANT a western style of democracy. Even if a half billion want it, that is nowhere near a majority, as China has 1.3 BILLION people!

In the United States, Freedom of Speech and Assembly (as we know it today) are RELATIVELY new.

Peaceful protests were met with the most brutal repression in the U.S. This is what the Civil Rights era was about. This is what Kent State was about when the U.S. Army killed protesters! These incidents were within 20 years of Tienamen Square.

Women in the U.S. do not have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to equality. The Equal Rights Ammendment is still not part of the Constitution.

There's plenty of room for improvement for all nations on this planet!

[CBranski]

China already is very open to the world, at least what the Chinese government wants us to see. I agree that because of their abyssmal human rights record they should not be awarded the games, because the systematic torture and murder of their people already occur with the world watching.

Ray however brought up a very good point. Toronto was also a contender for the games, and of course Canada's human rights record is a far sight better than China's. But the world really has not made them answer for the treatment of protesters in Quebec City. And here in the US, no one has really put our feet to the fire regarding events at Kent State and Seattle. Though I disagreed with most of the protesters, a free nation must demand that all parties be able to have their say in a peaceful and orderly fashion.

I'm also glad that Ray brought up the subject of women-a lot of guys I know can't deal with the fact that women are finally moving up in the world, and wonder why they're being left in the dust. I know, try mustering up some talent and hard work and stand against oppresion, legal or social! Just to give you an example, an article appeared in the Lifestyle section of the Milwaukee Journal a couple of weeks ago outlining ways that less intelligent members of the male species can deal with dating women that make more money than they do!



------------------
"Every Man a King, But No One Wears a Crown."
"If You Can't Beat Them, Arrange to Have Them Beaten."

[cleoeo]

I'm pleased with the China choice and astonished at how vigorously the Chinese government pursued the chance to host the games. I grew up with China being extremely isolated and suspicious of letting any foriegners in lest they corrupt the population with their "Capitalist Pig" ways. You can't get much more capitalistic than hosting the Summer Olymics! Plus all the crappy souveneers are made there anyway so we won't waste any fossil fuels shipping them somewhere else.

[ogb]

What I am complaining most about is that the Olympics are athlethes' games and the officials do not care about it. Samaranch just wanted to end his career with a highlight and the corrupt structures of the IOC made him get through with that (there was hardly any decision in his 21 years term that he did not win). But the evaluation comission gave best marks to the Toronto concept as all other cities had some critical aspects in their application. Almost every sportman who was interviewed told that he'd prefer Toronto as well.
Concerning human rights violations: they exist in every country, but not as massive as in China. I know about the women situation in the US Constitution as I wrote a test about it some weeks ago. But as long as the problem is only written and not occuring in the real life, it doesn't really matter. The protests on political meetings are no American phenomenon, they seem to happen almost everywhere now. But what can you do against it? Letting them destroy the cities? According to my mind they have to prohibit such demonstrations at the days of those meetings.
China is doing public mass executions almost daily (late night joke: "China is enthusiastic, they may host the olympics in 2008. The government celebrated with spontaneous mass executions"). And the people who did not want the olympics like the famous pictures of the guy with the placard showing the five olympic rings as bullets or the woman that wanted to talk to the media about the problems, show what the Chinese government does with people who don't share their opinion.
And concerning the meaning of the Olympic Games I may doubt what you said. Hosting the games does not automatically mean that they are capitalistic. Remember Hitler's propaganda games in 1936, the cold war games in 1980 and 1984. I think they should give the games to only those states that are not in trouble with others. The sense of the game is that the best sportsmen can compete with each other - and not the best sportsmen who are allowed to go there because there are some countries who will boycot. How the situation in 2008 will be, we don't know today, so why risking that much?


[This message has been edited by ogb (edited July 15, 2001).]

[RayH]

A lot of people assume that if certain changes are made in other countries, that there will be world benefit.

The US government did all they could to destablize the Soviet backed government in Afghanistan. Now the world has to deal with the Taliban.

Like it or not, the world needs China to move in an orderly fashion. If you want to see total chaos, let the Chinese government collapse in a vacuum. That is, without a stable leadership ready to assume the reigns of power.

The international economy would collapse. Could the world deal with maybe 400 million refugees?

[Ada_Doom]

I'm not convinced that awarding the games to China will make them change a thing. They will just go in to PR overdrive, and round up and imprison/shoot any "dissidents" in the period before the games, and then just allow the shiny happy "Hail to Chairman Mao" types to appear in public. Authoritarian regimes are the experts at spin, and they don't have a problem with lying like hell to save face.

For anyone who wants to know about China's human rights record, have a look in the Library link here (http://www.amnesty.org)

------------------
Heaven is where the police are English, the cars are German, the chefs are French, the lovers are Italian and everything is organised by the Swiss. Hell is where the chefs are English, the police are German, the cars are Spanish, the lovers are Swiss and everything is organised by the Italians.
The man is a God (http://www.jpwsfc.org)

[This message has been edited by Ada_Doom (edited July 16, 2001).]

[ogb]

I agree. One of the EU-comissioners already warned that European countries should better boycot the games if they don't improve the situation concerning the human rights. But if you saw the press conference with the Chinese delegation (journalist: "what do you do to improve the human right situation?" chinese delegation: "we are only acting according to our laws, there is nothing wrong with that") you know that they are not even aware of the problems.
When the few athlethes being in the olympic comitee wanted to bring the problem on topic before voting, the rest of the comission immediately cared that they go on with another topic. Good to have a new president who is under 150 now. What could you expect from an old man whose career began under General Franco in Spain!?!

[RubberDucky]

its a good thing to have happen.. consider how the communists of russia were able to have successful olympics.

[ogb]

Successful Olympics in Moscow? The Olympics in 1980 and 1984 both suffered under the boycots. How can a sports competition be successful if not the best athletes are taking part?

[Phreakmeister]

That's easy: Competing is more important than winning. Wasn't that the Olympic spirit?

------------------
Do you believe in death after life?

[Sephirstein]

Bring on the Taiwanese terrorists!!!

[Phreakmeister]

Whohowwhywhenwhat??? Whowhatwherewhenhow???

------------------
Do you believe in death after life?

[TV_Guy]

I think it will be good. Having the world focus on China I think will make them try to behave atleast for a while. Oh and to the joker who said they have Daily Public Mass Killings...what are you on man?

Also who gives a ****e if they're communist? I'm pretty sick of people saying that Democracy is the only right way to run a country. (I admit it's not bad though http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/biggrin.gif)

[Phreakmeister]

Communism isn't the bad thing about China. The bad thing about China (or the Chinese government), is the way it oppresses its people, the way it treats for instance members of the Falun Gong, the way it treats the Tibetans. That is the bad thing about China.

------------------
Do you believe in death after life?

[The Horseman]

The decision to go to Beijing with the 2008 Games has sod all to do with the state of the Chinese sporting facilities - this is all about getting China into the 'Brotherhood of Nations' (e.g. the Western bloc milking the most that it can out of China's economic boom). I mean, why the **** to you think that China was admitted to the WTO? Nobody high up gives a **** about the little guy suffering in China - without that little guy's suffering, thousands of little spoilt brats in the West will have to do without their latest trainers. Bringing the games to China is just a political thing - nothing more

[Phreakmeister]

Well, it's not all that much political, it's more an economic decision. Just think about it: 1 billion potential consumers. That's enough for companies to ignore politics.

The same reason Atlanta got the Olympic Games. Or do you think it's coincidence, that a small provincial town (which, let's face it, Atlanta is), which is the home of Coca Cola, CNN and McDonalds, gets the Games.
Coz let's take a look at the cities Atlanta beat: Toronto, Athens, Belgrade, Melbourne and Manchester. That they beat Manchester, ok, Belgrade, ok, I can understand that, but Athens, Toronto and Melbourne???????????????

------------------
Do you believe in death after life?

[CBranski]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister:


Or do you think it's coincidence, that a small provincial town (which, let's face it, Atlanta is), which is the home of Coca Cola, CNN and McDonalds, gets the Games.
Coz let's take a look at the cities Atlanta beat: Toronto, Athens, Belgrade, Melbourne and Manchester.



Actually, Atlanta's not all that small when you factor in the metropolitan area, whose population is slightly more than 2 million. Also, Atlanta is one of the world's busiest air crossroads-you'd have an easier time getting a flight to Atlanta than Melbourne.

As for those corporations, you're right except for McDonald's-they're headquartered in suburban Chicago.

------------------
Tony Soprano for Sherriff!

[The Horseman]

Well, Phreakmeister, it appears that you and I are going to disagree about a few things (In case you seen it, I've replied to the Enron thing).
1. Discount Manchester please. As a Brit, I can say that it's an embarrasment. That city applies for everything, from the Olympics to the World Tiddlewinks Championships. Really, the rest of the UK just wants it to shut up and let London do the talking
2. Politics and economics are unbreakably intertwined, in my view. After all, in most countries, isn't the most powerful department of government, after the head of government,the Treasury - dealing in macroeconomics? And really, all that stuff about CNN, Coke and so on really proves my point, doesn't it? If Coke is doing well, then we have 1000's of workers, satisified with their jobs. Satisfied workers are basically voters satisfied that whatever administration is in, it's doing a good job with the economy ('A depression is when you lose your job' - Harry Truman)
3. I accept the thing about the companies being able to ignore politics. However, to me it seems that the companies and the politicians are working towards the same thing - so why should they ignore each other?
Cheers,
The Horseman

[Phreakmeister]

I agree with you on a few points.

It is true that politics and economics are intertwined. But IMO, that's only as far as utility lets it go. If companies can take profit from politics, they will indeed take use of it. But sometimes politics can only be a nuisance to the economy, and that is when companies wish to evade politics. I just point to the trade embargo on Cuba (which a lot of companies would love to see disappear), the restraint on trading with Iran, etc. etc.

------------------
Do you believe in death after life?

[The Horseman]

OK, I have to admit that you have a point with those two.