• Home
  • About Me
  • Résumé/CV Work Experience
  • Contact
  • More
  • Archives
  • Categories
  • Olympic Haromony? Yeah, right!

    2008 - 04.07

    flameinlondon1.jpg

    One of the themes the Chinese Government spits over and over again is how the Olympics will promote peace, harmony and friendship around the world. The Torch Relay accomplishes this too, they say. The trouble is, what’s happening is just the opposite. From the day the torch was lit, protesters marred the Olympic spirit. Now, protesters will follow the flame on its 85,000 mile, 21 country, five continent journey.

    In London Sunday, protesters tried to extinguish the flame, even trying to rip the torch from a runner’s hand.

    It’s a shame all this is tainting the Olympics. Who knows what would be different if Tibet didn’t act up last month. So the Olympics this year will not bring joy, but debate. Everyone will talk about China as a dominating, communist country instead of a growing international superpower. Negative connotations, especially in the West, will be plenty.

    In a way, this is good. The Olympics brings China’s “One China” policy up for debate. What happened in Tibet creates opportunities for discussion and learning. One blog reader here suggested I had made a mistake by calling Tibetans Chinese citizens. Remember, Tibet is a Chinese province, making its residents citizens of China. Hopefully, people can learn not only about Tibet, but about how China works. China’s government is unitary, like a corporation. China doesn’t have the benefits of American’s federalist system. Each province is responsible to the central government, there’s no autonomy.

    In the end, what will be China’s image to the world? The government is trying to portray China as a growing power, rich with innovation, culture and economic success. Those great, legitimate traits are being forgotten this year as protests spread. Will China learn? Will the media report the positive things about China? Not just what’s bad? We’ll have to wait and see.

    Your Reply