Thursday, April 17, 2008

Pride comes before a failure

The "story" of the Green Party annual convention that took place in Dundalk, co. Louth last weekend was undoubtedly John Gormley's clear message to the Chinese government (via the intermediary of the Chinese ambassador, conveniently seated in the audience) re. Tibet, during his leader's address on the saturday evening. Those words once again:

“Respect for human rights must extend to all cultures and countries. One country which has been exploited and suppressed and suffered for far too long is Tibet. We condemn unequivocally the flagrant abuse of human rights by the Chinese government and call on the Chinese government to enter dialogue with the Dalai Lama.”


Following this statement, the ambassador and his little team of diplomats, were no longer sitting in their seats. Cameras flashed, champions of Freedom and Human Rights everywhere cheered, and a buzz filled the room which didn't dissipate until well into sunday afternoon.

I wouldn't describe myself as a contrarian, by occupation, I think it's fair to say I've no objections to towing the party line, when it's a line I can stand by. No doubt it would be cynical and harsh to describe our esteemed leader as merely jumping on the china-bashing bandwagon, I'm sure John's sentiments were genuine and that his intensions were golden. But his words and especially the reaction that followed, left me feeling distinctly uneasy. And perhaps for that reason I began to search for another side to a debate that, so far, I feel has been extremely one-sided.

And as it turns out, one can ask questions about the Tibetan campaign and not be a fascist: http://organizedrage.blogspot.com/2008/04/tibet-china-and-west-so-many-questions.html

I have to say I wasn't particularaly impressed or filled with pride by what was effectively an orchestrated publicity stunt. And a rather crude one at that. It's not news, it's not a message that's being suppressed, in the media or political spheres, by any stretch of the imagination, so I fail to see the element of bravery involved.

But I was even less impressed with the jeers, with the name-calling and the self-congratulatory pats on the back all round that many indulged in, in the aftermath. But this was my first "grown-up" party convention, so perhaps that's what goes on at these kinds of things. The herd-mentality kicks in, it's a bit like supporting your home team at a football match, this is just the way in whcih we identify ourselves, by our political convictions, but it's just as basic in many ways. Unfortunately.

It's an unfortunate coincidence perhaps, that the day after the convention ended it was reported on the BBC news that China had just overtaken the US as the world's number 1 polluter. In fairness to the BBC, they did of course report the fineprint - that carbon consumption per head is a fraction of what it is in the West, and living standards for the vast majority of Chinese still lag far behind. Speaking of inconvenient truths...

The Free Tibet campaign has exploded over the past few months, gaining increasing momentum with the approach of the Olympics. Understandably, if there was ever a time to take to the streets in support of Tibet, now is it, when everybody's watching and the profile of the dispute and the plight of Tibet & the Dalai Lama is sky high.

I'm not saying that Tibetans don't have legitimate and very serious grievances, I'm just wary of the fact that the cause seems to have been latched onto by a whole new group, at a time of particular political and economic significance. And perhaps it serves their cause, but it also undermines it. Sympathy with Tibet shouldn't necessarily mean anti-Chinese feeling or Sinophobia, but they're in danger of becoming two sides of the same coin.

Chinese imperialism and the oppression of minorities are one thing (that I'm by no means defending), but when it comes to countries in the West ganging up to take pot shots at China, it seems to me that there's another kind of power-game going on here at the same time, a kind of bullying on an even larger scale, a reaction to the fact that China seems to have pretensions in terms of acquiring super-power status, and needs to be kept in check. But perhaps these relations of domination are benign, because the West is in the right - it systematically supports human rights and claims to independant sovereignty, after all. No vested interests there then.

No doubt this is hardly how the Chinese see it, but then what would they know, they're just being fed a load of propaganda.

Clearly we think we can afford to trample on our diplomatic relations with China. To throw stones and ostracise them, to be uncompromising. But how is that going to serve our purposes, exactly, when they subsequently refuse to engage with the rest in dialogue about say - the environment, let alone Human Rights or Tibetan independance. How does it help the state of the world to make the Chinese - politicians, youth, and the general population - feel isolated, under attack and discriminated against? From someone who has just returned from China, I'm told of the fierce anti-Western feeling, the anger among many, and it makes my blood run cold.

I don't think one can overestimate just how dangerous it is for Europeans and Westerners to boil the issue down to demonising China. I think in the long-run this can only lead to very serious intractable problems and fractures. So why on earth have we begun digging another rift?

Is there really so much of a consensus in the world that we need to go out of our way to alienate and ostracise vaste sections of the population? I think the Greens especially, who desperately want a breakthrough when it comes to global environmental policy, have administered a real shot in the foot here, and demonstrated a remarkable lack of tact, sensitivity or foresight.

Aren't there other means of negociation and pressure rather than calculated insults? Isn't the only chance for global co-operation necessarily about compromise and finding common ground, about respect, rather than launching attacks and making demands, just for the sake of a round of applause?

3 comments:

TheVirginiaAndrew said...

I have to agree. I feel we are all pawns in a wider geopolitical struggle between the west and China, and Gormley happily played along. The US & EU have a chance to take China down a peg, and they are taking full advantage of it.

However, I'm not sure if diplomatic back channels are the best way either. It seems China is determined to base their foreign policy largely on PR and the perception of an inevitable rise of peaceful power. The only response to that is similar publicity stunts. Sad, but probably true.

Watchdog Watchdog said...

Good post. I've little interest in endless recitations of the party line, but I have to disagree.

I don't think that it was a publicity stunt, in any meaningful sense. I remember when someone mentioned that the Chinese ambassador had accepted the invitation to the convention, I immediately thought that something must be said: partially because it'd be strange if it went unmentioned, but also because the events in Tibet are unavoidably in our minds more so than at most times. What I wanted was a dignified objection during the party leader's speech, and that's what I think happened. I would've hoped for the same thing for the US or UK Ambassadors, had they accepted.

Without meaning to be overly critical, I think that it's a bit glib to equate (or come close to equating) the West's (for want of a better term) treatment of human rights with China's. Western governments, by and large, are accountable to their people and the wider world: something the Chinese government can't boast. And while nearly everyone is smeared in shite with regards to imperialism, I can't imagine a representative Western government getting away with literal re-education camps, the jailing of dissidents, and the kind of reactionary, intolerant state violence that we see in China and Tibet. It simply wouldn't happen today. If there is a chance to snub Chinese world interests, I welcome it. The alternative isn't necessarily that much better, but at least that alternative has the potential for accountability and change. Perhaps we differ conceptually over the "evilnessness" of the US/West, but I think that if there's a diplomatic battle between the US/Europe with China, I'm generally with the former, for reasons I hope aren't jingoistic.

TheVirginiaAndrew said...

Michael-

Interesting comment. On your last point about taking sides: I'm not taking either side, just in case you think I am. I'm critical of both sides and the system which they operate on.
Indeed, it's the system that I am most critical of. The same international system that leads states to criticize other states not based on a higher moral point or whether that states actions are right or wrong, but on whether that state is a friend or enemy.
Its the same system that lead the US to support Iraq in the 1980s and China to support Sudan now.
I can't help but feel that we are playing in to, and therefore supporting, this system. We should be trying to END it, though in reality I don't know how.