Posts Tagged ‘tibet’

Olympics brass ignore China’s role in ongoing Darfur genocide

April 20, 2008

An article from Mia Farrow….

There are few institutions in the world that claim to embody and protect humanity’s highest dreams and values. The International Olympic Committee, custodian of the Olympic Games, is one of them.

Any organization that lays claim to the lofty moral goal of protecting mankind’s universal dreams and aspirations should, from time to time, be subject to a reality check; rhetoric of morality and peace is without substance if words are not matched by deeds.

The situation in Darfur presents such an opportunity. There is a direct connection — financial, military, political and strategic — between this year’s Olympic host, China, and the humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur that has been called the first genocide of the 21st century.

Entering its sixth year, it is unclear how many have died from the conflict between the Arab-dominated government in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, and the non-Arab tribes of the region of Darfur. Most estimates say there have been at least 200,000 casualties, though that is likely an undercount. More than 2.5 million people have been displaced.

As we speak, humanitarian aid is scaling back because the situation is so dangerous for aid workers. If there is no protection for the delivery of food and medicine, there is no aid.

And so, in addition to the recent spike in government and Janjaweed attacks that killed so many, most Darfurians are now dying a slow death of starvation and disease.

What does Darfur have to do with the International Olympic Committee? The IOC chose this year’s Olympic host, China. China is underwriting the genocide in Darfur. And the IOC has remained silent.

“Respect for universal fundamental ethical principles” is what the IOC’s Charter demands. When awarding the Olympics to China, the IOC said the Games would serve to “open up” China to the world on human rights issues. In fact, China’s promise to improve its record on human rights issues was reportedly part of Beijing’s pitch to the International Olympic Committee to win the privilege of hosting the Games.

Yet as the Games approach, the IOC has proven reluctant to mention, much less address, the human rights complaints about China. It was only recently, following large protests that dogged the Olympic Torch Relay in London and Paris, that the IOC President Jacques Rogge called for the peaceful resolution of the Tibet issue. Responding only to the squeakiest wheel, Rogge ignored the plight of Darfur.

And so has China. Despite intense international scrutiny, China has not yet substantially altered its mutually beneficial relationship with Khartoum, nor used its leverage to increase security for the citizens of Darfur.

Instead, China has condemned anyone who has dared to raise such issues — including the IOC. Shortly after Rogge, in his first — and tepid — comment about Tibet, made mention of a need for “moral engagement” by China, high-ranking Chinese officials publicly reprimanded him, saying the IOC should “stay out of politics.”

The Olympic Charter clearly claims that Olympic sport exists in the service of a better, more peaceful mankind, stating: “The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.”

There is still time for the IOC to make a difference and live up to its ideals. The IOC should immediately employ the singular tool available to it, the Olympic Truce, with respect to Darfur. The Truce calls for a cessation of hostilities for a period before, during and after the Games. To implement the Olympic Truce for the 2008 Games, the IOC should call on the UN Security Council to implement the full deployment of UN Resolution 1769 immediately so that civilians will be protected in Darfur before the Games commence.

The IOC has said that the Olympic Truce is symbolic — it stands for an idea. That’s exactly right.

If the IOC takes such an action, its leaders will be able to say it upholds the standards and principles entrusted to them by athletes and the world community.

If the IOC remains silent on Darfur, the leader of the Olympic movement will have proven itself unworthy of continuing to guard the Olympic flame.

Advertisements

The Dalai Lama and “Cultural Genocide”

March 17, 2008

Let’s talk “cultural genocide”. To begin with I have no idea what this means. Let’s suppose that it means the systematic attempt to wipe out a culture.  Okay, I can buy this, sort of.

The Dalai Lama seems convinced of its legitimacy as a concept and after all who is really going to argue with the Dalai Lama…

He has stated that organizations need to look into whether the events in China over the weekend constitute a cultural genocide. He claimed that “The Tibetan nation faces serous danger. A cultural genocide is taking place in Tibet.”  He further notes that “local Chinese leaders were relying on the use of force to ensure peace and stability and their attitude to Tibetan Buddhism was very negative.” Okay…..

Let’s talk incendiary language. If you want to kill a cocktail party or bring out some serious opinions in people mention one of the following: Tibet or Genocide.  If you want to make world news about your cause put them together in the same sentence.

The Dalai Lama is right in claiming that what the Chinese are doing is wrong- they have shut down a city after all. However, he has also claimed that China, as the world’s most populous nation, deserves to host the Olympics but it must look seriously at repairing its human rights record “in order to be a good host.” He laughed at suggestions that the exile government was fueling the anti-Chinese protests, saying it was the natural result of deep resentment caused by China’s treatment of Tibetans as second-class citizens in their own land. Okay, but this is not a strong enough situation for the term genocide.

He is wrong in coining and continuing to use the phrase “cultural genocide” as its just amping up the attention to an already fraught conflict. In this instance he is using the overly strong language to drum up support by creating a situation in which thier is a victim and an abuser rather than showing shades of graduation. This is not a situation of outright evil with untold of numbers of dead.

I think we all need to stop latching on to the word and take a step back to analyze the situation as a series of protests and counter-reactions; this is not a genocide. Cultural genocide can happen as a by-product of an actual genocide. I’m not sure it can happen the other way around.

Your thoughts?