On Tibet, the torch and Dick Pound

Utterly contradictory stories are emerging about how long Tibet will remain shut down to tourists.

I bet it will stay sealed off till after the Olympics in August.

You may recall how China said a few weeks ago that Tibet would reopen May 1. But officials later seemed to think better of that plan. They postponed the opening date indefinitely. Some foreign tour groups apparently got antsy, and the central government probably didn’t want to completely destroy the Tibet tourism industry. So before the weekend, state media announced that Tibet would reopen “soon.”

Here’s what China Daily said:

The Tibet regional government on Friday rejected reports it has abandoned a plan to reopen the region to foreign tourists on May 1, saying it "will open soon", without giving a specific date.

In a written statement sent to China Daily, the information office of the regional government said: "The Tibet tourism bureau is doing its utmost to prepare for the reopening of all scenic spots."

The same day this news came out, I heard on very good authority that top diplomats at the U.S. Embassy don’t believe Tibet will reopen till September. After all, why take needless risks that foreigners will embarrass China when the Olympic torch passes through Tibet later this spring? Or worse yet, mount some sort of protest during the Games themselves?

Speaking of the torch, I wrote a story last Friday about how the relay has turned into a debacle for China and for the advertisers. As I was reporting the story, I contacted Dick Pound, a name that might ring a bell for some of you. Mr. Pound is a Canadian lawyer who made quite a name for himself with his aggressive tactics while serving as chief of the World Anti-Doping Agency. He remains an International Olympic Committee member.

I didn’t hear from Mr. Pound until after my deadline. But I don’t want to waste his remarks on why he thinks the global torch relay is a bad idea. So here’s the email he sent me:

I have always had doubts about the value of an international torch relay, especially when a super-power is the host country. My Olympic Games Study Commission recommended against anything but a domestic relay.  The costs, logistics and risks far outweigh any possible benefits. What Olympic “uptick” can possibly result in foreign countries where the torch spends half a day?

The IOC should have been more alert to the problems that are now being encountered.  It is very easy for pressure groups to attach their issues to a vulnerable and peaceful symbol such as the Olympic flame.

The violence of the protests on this occasion have, however, removed all the moral high ground from underneath the protesters.  It is not credible to protest against violence by resorting to violence in other countries.
    RWP

Comments

[Al]

Hey i just have to say i really appreciate your blog. i lived in China for a year and a half teaching English. The more i read your blog the more i connect my own story to how you explain China. I look forward to what you have to say next.

Allan

[bemis]

When will Tibet "re-open"? Stop agitating & just be grateful for any date that may be set, for the likes of you.

[A B]

Mr. Pound got it right.

The amazing thing is that China have totally failed to grasp the fact that the rioters and protesters' violent tactics have given China the moral high ground.

China also got out mobilized internationally.

This is a game that China could have won handily if they were more prepared.

[Crian]

China could have done a better PR job it shows their naiévty in assuming that the world would play along with their farce. As for the Torch relay, it was started by the Germans to move their idelogy foward during the Nazi era WW2, its kind of ironic that it will end with the oppressive communist regime of China.

[A B]

Not that I am in the business of politicizing the business of the Olympics, but if people wish to politicize it...

- 1940 Olympics (canceled) awarded to Japan, which at that time was at war with China and committing atrocities and about to declare war with US and Britain.

- 1964, Japan again hosts Olympics even though it refused to conclude a peace treaty with China or pay a Yen in reparations.

- 1980 in USSR. Enough said.

- 1984 in USA which fought and lost in series of wars in Indochina and paid not a dime in war reparations

So can wiseacres like Crian kindly tell us which Oppressive regime the Olympics Torch relay should have ended up with?

[A B]

Tim,

Did you notice that CNN is deliberately falsifying the facts in the coverage of Cafferty protests?

This is a link to CNN Asia's article yesterday about the protests against CNN and the French:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/04/20/china.protests/

Notice the phrase in the CNN article:

"On April 9, Jack Cafferty, a commentator on CNN's "Situation Room" program, used the term "goons and thugs" while describing the conditions in China years ago."

I watched the newsclip and I have a transcript of what Cafferty said, and the facts are as follows:

- At no time did Jack Cafferty imply, or even in any say say, that this "goons and thugs" phrase refer to or described conditions in China "years ago".

- In fact, the "goons and thugs" phrase refer to the continuity in Chinese behavior between past and present.

- Furthermore, at no time did Cafferty just refer to the government or in any way distinguished it from the Chinese people, it was to Chinese as a people and an ethnic group.

The remarkable thing is CNN, in all its brilliance, think that in the age of Youtube and the internet, that people would not check the facts so they can gloss over their actions by lying about it.

Cafferty was not referring to conditions years ago, but current conditions in China and to China, its people (whether living in China or abroad) and government all in one.

To try to minimize what was said in this manner by falsifying facts is fraud by CNN's Asia Editors.

Having senior editors to be fired is now, about the only course they have left to restore some credibility.

Deliberately falsifying facts in a subsequent article that reported the news is pretty serious as an offense for a western newsman.

PS For the sharp eyed reader, there was no byline in the article, so we do not know up front who falsified the facts, and furthermore, to conclude with the CNN "government not people" quote implies that that is the truth.

Someone might have pointed out that there is a fundamental conflict of interest with CNN writing about this issue and not pointing out that management (and the senior editors behind this article) were in fact part of the news.

Is this what CNN journalism has declined to?

Should it be called National Enquirer News?

[A B]

If the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have any spine and willingness to defend the Chinese people, CNN's track record of biased coverage in the past month, namely:

- the cropped photo

- Cafferty,

- the "apology"

- the latest continuing effort to falsify news

Should be handled with firm measures.

If I were sitting in Beijing, I would give them one more chance to come clean and atone, and failing that, initiate legal action in China against them for slander.

At the same time, I would withdraw their broadcast license into China for an initial period of 90 days beginning May 1st, 2008.

If CNN do not take the proper course of action by then, the broadcast license will remain suspended indefinitely.

[nanheyangrouchuan]

@ AB

Mao refused the money that MacArthur ordered Japan to pay.

China is a junk country full of pollution, goons and thugs as well as selling poisoned products.

[Bill]

nanheyangrouchuan should stop confuse all Chinese people with facts. Facts don't mean a thing in China, so stop it.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry should have closed CNN, with all its worldwide assets confiscated and handed over to CCTV so that the world will have the first unbiased TV station.

[A B]

Bill,

Perhaps that is a bit extreme. It is like killing off Arthur Anderson.

Let's try reform through education of CNN first.

There are ways to make Time-Warner, the parent company of CNN, see the light real fast when advertising revenues - its bread and butter - is dropping fast with the US recession.

All it takes is a carefully focused campaign aimed at getting some of Time Warner's largest advertisers - who happen to be heavily invested in the China market - to pull their ads from CNN and other Time Warner publications to speak very loudly.

Would you like me to give you a hit list?

Names like Proctor Gamble, Johnson and Johnson, to start.

It would be funny if the Chinese protests caused Time Warner to miss a quarter's earnings badly. That goes straight to the CEO and CFO's permanent record on Wall Street.

I am a bit bemused that nearly 20 years ago, demonstrators around the world, including inside China, were out in force demonstrating AGAINST the Chinese government.

Today, a majority of the demonstrators abroad (and also within China) are demonstrating FOR the Chinese government.

You can have Hu and Wen to thank for that.

Black Cat, White Cat, doesn't matter if it catches the mice!

[Wilbur Varela]

What a joke, CNN is censored by China, non of their citizens can watch it, so spare us the hurt feelings of the chinese people. And are we supposed to believe Xinhua is some sort of paragon of investigative journalism? please. China doesn't have news, they have propaganda. And any one who can apologize for a dictatorship where the citizens can't vote is obviously deluded or a paid party member. Check out any Chinese history book....it reads like fiction, and ends before the cultural revolution. Remember that? Chinese killing their own citizens, trying to outdo each other with their little red books, burning and smashing their own temples, artwork and history. The same thugs are still in power, as Cafferty reminded us, only now, their communist ideology is some sort of weird mix of capitalism and fascism. They can't take criticism because their society is built on repression. Yes, the hardworking chinese people have risen to a level of prosperity that befits their noble nature, but they are deceiving themselves if they think the rest of the world doesn't see the big Lie. China is a signatory of the UN charter on human rights, yet on just about every level, these rights are routinely ignored on a daily basis. Just ask Hu Jia. If he makes it out of prison alive.

[A B]

I am able to watch CNN in many parts of China as well as access its website with no difficulty at all.

So a plausible explanation is that the censors routinely follow me and turn off the censorship whenever I am present?

Amusing foreigners like Wilburites don't mind lying about the most basic, easy to fact check things to forward their case.

Probably a cast off from the Clinton campaign.

[Douglas]

Speaking of human rights, no country in the world is more hypocritical than the U.S. which has been waving the stick of "human right" around for decades for nothing but its own interests. The U.S. is, as it has always been, using the issue of human rights as a pretext to destabilize and topple the governments of countries which it does not like or sees as its rival: if the U.S really maintains its high moral ground and cherishes freedom, liberty, democracy, and human rights as it claims it does, then why the heck did it maliciously topple the democratically elected government of Guatemala under President Jacob Arbenz Guzman in 1954, who has genuine concern for the democratic process and the well-being of the Guatemalan people? The overthrow of President Guzman has led to a bloody civil war in Guatemala that has lasted over 30 years, resulting in the death of more than 200,000 Guatemalans. If the U.S. really is the champion of democracy and freedom, why the heck did it assassinate President Allende of Chile in 1973 in a bloody and horrific coup that toppled the government of Chile which was also democratically elected by the Chilean people? If the U.S. is really concerned about the human rights conditions of Chinese people, why the heck is it relentlessly attacking the human rights records of China, whose people, myself is included, are enjoying greater freedom, democracy, human rights protection than any other time in its 5000 year history? Why the heck did the U.S., instead of attacking China's human rights record like it is doing now, recognize the government of China and establish diplomatic relations with her in the 1970 when the human rights conditions in China was at the lowest point? Examples like these are too many to cite here. They have clearly demonstrated the ulterior motives and evil intent of the U.S. in using human rights issues as an attack weapon to topple governments it has issues with. So stop being hypocritical and stop faking the role of moral defender of human rights and champion of democracy. Those old tricks don't work well with a new generation of Chinese, who are smart enough to see through what the U.S. and its running dogs are up to.