Congratulations to Our Victorious Athletes

...And even to those who weren't. Thank you for giving Canadians everywhere a sliver of pride in the otherwise shameful affair of the Beijing Olympics.

It Would Be Funnier If It Weren't Damn Near True

International Olympic Committee Embraces "One China" Policy

No flag, anthem -- or even country name -- for Taiwanese Olympians

Those who have been paying close attention to the Beijing Olympics may have taken notice of a country that they otherwise may have been unaware exists.

Mostly because it doesn't.

As this Al Jazeera report notes, "Chinese Taipei" may seem like the name of some fledging new Asian state, but it isn't. Rather, "Chinese Taipei" is the name imposed by the IOC on Taiwan, whom China regards as a "renegade province". The IOC even took the liberty of giving the Taiwanese team a new -- distinctly non-Taiwanese -- flag for the duration of the 2008 games.

Countless events leading up to the 2008 games have put the lie to the IOC's insistence that hosting the games would help China improve its human rights record. Now, the IOC's treatment of Taiwan -- under pressure applied by the Chinese state -- has put the lie to the notion that hosting the Olympics will give China incentive to improve its foreign policy stance.

In this case, the policy imposing itself on the Olympic games is China's contentious "One China" policy. Of course, Taiwan has its own One China policy, in which its government insists that it is the legitimate government of China.

Historically, this goes all the way back to the struggle between the Communist Party of China, who succeeded in seizing control of mainland China, and the Kuomintang who, defeated in the Chinese Civil War, sought refuge on the island of Taiwan.

For the IOC to effectively take sides in the One China controversy -- telling Taiwanese athletes they aren't allowed to compete under their own flag, or hear their own anthem after a victory -- shows just how pervasive the effect of China's influence over the games has become. It's undermined one of the Olympics' most fundamental traditions -- competing in the name of one's country.

It's yet another black eye the IOC will have to find a way to erase.

Thanks for Calling, Jean...

But we'll wait for someone with credibility to speak up

When considering relations between Canada and China, one has to wonder just how far Canadians would really agree with a man who couldn't even bring himself to say the words "human rights" to the Premier of China.

After all, Canada is a country that respects human rights. China? Not so much.

So when such a man -- a former Prime Minister of this country -- cannot bring himself to talk to Chinese leaders about their myriad human rights abuses, one has to wonder precisely how in touch with Canadian values he really is.

When that man is Jean Chretien, the very man who insisted on using the rather ambiguous phrase "good governance and the rule of law" in lieu of "human rights", it just so happens to say a lot about how deeply he shares the values of most Canadians, particularly when it comes to relations with China.

Recently, as the Beijing 2008 Olympic games are underway, Jean Chretien had a good deal to say about current Prime Minister Stephen Harper's absence at the games. None of it was good.

"Starting with Diefenbaker, Trudeau and all of us, we established very good relations, relatively speaking, with China," Chretien boasted. "And suddenly, you break the bridge. It would have been easy just to be there."

"Look at the speech by Sarkozy on China," Chretien said. "He had to swallow himself whole and he went there. The Chinese are like that. `OK, fine, you don't like us, we're not buying French food'."

Of course, Chretien has his own justification for his comments -- most of them economic.

"It is the second biggest economy in the world, and in 50 years it will be the biggest," Chretien insisted.

Chretien's attitude is that Canadians should simply swallow their pride in order to sell our products to China.

"Look at the speech by Sarkozy on China," Chretien said. "He had to swallow himself whole and he went there. The Chinese are like that. `OK, fine, you don't like us, we're not buying French food'."

Of course, wherever Chretien imagines China will get enough food to feed nearly 1.5 billion people if it stops trading with any country that criticizes it is probably best left unimagined -- in a perverse sense, it really isn't all that different from David Tsubouchi's insistence that Ontario's poor could feed themselves by buying dented cans of Tuna.

The fact is that an economy like China's -- currently growing faster than any other economy in the world -- is in desperate need of resources. It's not likely to hamper its ability to acquire those resources over some wounded pride. In modern China -- under a communist regime willing to skimp on the actual communism in order to assure its own survival -- pragmatism will prevail.

Chretien also insists that China has made progress on human rights.

Perhaps he should try telling that to John Ray, a British reporter who was arrested for merely covering a Free Tibet rally. Or Naomi Klein, who notes the shocking breadth of the police state China has built around the Beijing games.

Stephen Harper, for his part, insists that his absence at the games was merely due to a scheduling difficulty. Which, in and of itself, is rather unfortunate. One should hope that Canada's Prime Minister would stand up to China on human rights.

But Stephen Harper should take few lessons from Jean Chretien on how to deal with China. Chretien peddled his credibility away for a few measly trade agreements.

Beijing Olympics Helping to Snuff Out Torch of Human Freedom

"McCommunism" providing disturbing new model for authoritarian rule

In the many months leading up to the 2008 Summer Olympic games in Beijing, the Chinese state has made one thing perfectly clear:

China isn't going to put up with any shit.

The intention to take no shit was underscored decisively yesterday as several Canadian protesters were deported from China. Reportedly, Chinese officials took Steve Andersen's credit card from him in order to purchase his own plane ticket home.

Over the past several days, the Real News Network has been featuring a fascinating series of interviews with Naomi Klein, wherein she discusses precisely how this authoritarian regime -- which Klein dubs "Police State 2.0" has come to fruition:



Klein proposes an interesting thesis: that the record $12 billion expenditure on securing the Beijing Olympic games has been done in order to "advance the goals of global capitalism".

One may agree or disagree with this thesis. In fact, the very ostentatiousness of the opening ceremonies, in particular, seems intended to impress upon the world the grandeur of modern China -- a common attitude within China throughout history (urban legend continues to assert that chopsticks, in particular, were invented for the near-sole purpose of humiliating foreign diplomats).

On the other hand, there's no question that China -- with a population of nearly 1.5 billion people -- has been a tremendous benefactor of capitalism. Meanwhile, the Chinese Communist Party -- with a clear incentive to keep itself in power and clearly having learned the lessons of its former compatriots in Russia -- clearly benefits from the sheer vastness of the resources that eager capitalists have funnelled into populous China.

The bigger question is whether or not the Chinese state is intending to use all this security to create a "consumer cocoon" or whether China's Communist regime (although Communist only in name) has merely used the Olympics, coupled with the current national security culture that has swept the post-9/11 world, as a pretext to give itself the means to sustain itself in power indefinitely.



In Shock Doctrine, Klein argues that post-WWII capitalism has used various disasters -- of one form or another -- to advance itself throughout the world.

In the post-9/11 world, Klein argues, the threat of terrorism has become this disaster -- or rather, potential disaster -- that capitalism has used to promote itself.

Klein notes, however, that a particular threat has long menaced Chinese society -- that of overpopulation. This, coupled with a government-mandated policies limiting the number of children married couples are allowed to have, has given rise to a natural surveillance culture within China. Klein argues that the unparalleled security measures put in place in advance of the 2008 games are simply a "technological upgrade" of this surveillance culture.

Klein notes that the number of migrant Chinese (130 million at most recent count) has posed a challenge to the natural surveillance culture. As such, the "technological upgrade" was necessary just for Beijing to maintain its oppressive grip.

Klein notes that we see many such surveillance systems in western culture, particularly in airports -- although there is a big difference between such surveillance being present in an airport and being present on a public city street.

Klein notes that the Olympics have been a fantastic loophole for China to get its hands on security tools barred from export to China after the Tiananmen Square massacre. This is being done in the name of securing the games for international spectators, athletes and VIPs.

One has to think that Chinese organizers were well aware of this when submitting their bid for the 2008 Olympic games.



There is no question that Democracy has not followed Rupert Murdoch's introduction of Satellite Television into China.

Murdoch likely never contended with the will of western telecommunications firms to do whatever is necessary to gain access to the Chinese market. Klein astutely notes that many of these firms have been complicit in the construction of the police state infrastructure in China.

However, China's bending of the global capitalist economy to its will -- rather than vice versa -- undermines Klein's original thesis.



When the Olympics were awarded to China, it was expected that western civilization would be able to export its ideals into China.

For Naomi Klein, however, the trend has allegedly been the reverse: instead, Chinese-style repression is exporting itself into western society. The arguing points for this remain fairly obvious ones: the widespread legislation of various anti-terror acts that allow governments to curtail civil liberties when they feel it to be necessary.

However, it took 9/11, 7/7 and more than twenty years of terrorist attacks (including Canada's own Air India bombing) for such legislation to even become viable in western civizilation. China, meanwhile, has maintained its current brand of totalitarianism for one year shy of six decades.

And while its interesting to note how Chinese communism has evolved over these 59 years -- for example, Maoism enshrined ruralism, whereas modern China has, as Klein notes, made use of 130 million displaced rural Chinese in order to build its modren prestige cityscapes -- the authoritarian nature of its regime has not changed.

The 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre only underscored the regime's intent to never change any more than necessary.

If anything, the 2008 Beijing games risks fomenting tolerance for the authoritarian tendencies of the Chinese state.

The Olympics once stood for something better. The Olympics were once argued to promote peace and acceptance amongst differing countries and cultures. The Olympic Torch was argued to represent human nobility. The spirit of international competition was intended to promote freedom and human rights.

Instead, China has taken up the Olympic Torch as a pretext to impose an ever more oppressive grip on its society.

The 2008 Beijing games will remain a black eye on the face of the Olympic movement. Its legacy will be the further oppression of the citizenry of its host nation, the the fire of the Olympic torch will remain forever diminished.

But not in the name of capitalism, as Naomi Klein insists. Rather, it will be in the name of totalitarianism for the sake of totalitarianism.

Greenpeace Activist Deported from China

Hudema's Chinese adventure may instill some respect for Canadian-style "good governance and the rule of law"

For the past year, Mike Hudema has proven to be a royal headache for anyone even remotely associated with the oilsands developments in Fort MacMurray, Alberta.

Participating in a number of well-orchestrated stunts both in Fort MacMurray and across Alberta, Hudema's protest methods have gotten him arrested before -- mostly for trespassing.

But when Hudema and four other activists -- Steve Anderson, Padma-Dolma Fieltz, Paul Baker and Denise Ogonoski -- tried to unveil a banner and a flag in Tiananmen Square, Chinese security officials weren't about to have any of that.

They were promptly arrested, and have been deported back to Canada.

In retrospect, the unprecedented level of security in Beijing for the Olympic games -- more money has reportedly been spent securing the 2008 Olympic Games than any other event in human history -- may have been more than Hudema, who has previously banked on the notoriously lax security of oilsands sites, bargained for.

"The security is beyond anything I've seen before," Hudema told the Edmonton Journal. "There are military officials on every street corner."

Hudema reported that he and his group had seemingly been targeted by undercover officials very shortly after arriving in China. In fact, Chinese police paid the quintet a visit. The apartment they had rented was searched, and they were taken into police custody and questioned for allegedly breaking an unstated Chinese law.

"You're in a room with one to five interrogators who are firing questions at you, yelling at you," Hudema said, describing the experience.

Hudema and company were eventually released, only to be rearrested following their attempt to protest.

Hudema has most assuredly found his ordeal in Beijing far more trying than anything he's encountered in his career protesting against the oilsands. "To just unfold a flag, and not even get it open halfway before you're tackled to the ground," Hudema mused. "A lot of us are emotionally shaken from this."

Not to mention that Hudema attempted to do this in public, as opposed to on private property or at a private function.

There is no question that the security climate in China surrounding these games is unprecedentedly intense. Comparing it to that which surrounds the oilsands is like comparing two entirely different worlds.

While Hudema's been allowed to more or less have free run of the Fort MacMurray oilsands, it's very different when contending with "a very brutal military dictatorship whose tactics have not changed."

The Chinese will to harness the Beijing Olympics as an opportunity to show off to the rest of the world, with as little controversy as possible, has led to some very extreme measures.

While one not need always agree with Hudema or his methods, one still has to respect the passion with which he pursues his cause. Likewise, still has to be concerned with the Orwellian efficiency with which the Chinese state has trailed, corralled and deported a group of Canadian citizens -- especially considering ease with which Chinese intelligence services have gathered information on our citizens.

For Mike Hudema's part, maybe his ordeal has taught him to appreciate the comparatively gentle embrace of an oilsands security guard to the spear tackle of a Chinese police officer.

August 2008 Book Club Selection: Mediapolitik, Lee Edwards

Modern media revolutionizing politics

With the eyes of the world now firmly on China as the Beijing 2008 Summer Olympic Games are officially underway, many people the world over are appraising how the Chinese state reacts to the extra attention the Olympics inevitably bring.

In particular, bans restricting the internet access of journalists covering the games have proven to be especially controversial -- and disturbing.

While Mediapolitik actually covers the ever-increasing influence of journalism on politics -- and inevitably vice versa -- on a global scale, Edwards' examination of China is particularly prescient as the Chinese state takes unprecedented steps to control the flow of information into and out of China during the Olympic games.

In particular, Edwards takes note of the Chinese efforts to control coverage of the Tiananmen Square massacre. In an age where it was increasingly being realized that most people around the world -- and within rapidly industrializing China -- often seemed to need to see an event on television before it was deemed to be real, China suppressed knowledge of the massacre simply by restricting media coverage of it within the country.

While still unable to control the international media to the extent that it's succeeded in the leadup to the Beijing games, Deng Xiaoping was able to minimize the internal damage to his regime by, at least for a time, transforming Tiananmen Square from a horrific event witnessed by the world at large into the stuff of rumour and urban legend within China.

Even where the massacre was recognized to have occurred, Xiaoping succeeded in writing it off as an incident provoked by malcontented subversives. What unfolded within China was a masterful act of media manipulation, even as Chinese efforts to discourage discussion of the event on the global stage unfolded as a masterful act of diplomatic manipulation.

The comparison between what is being accomplished in China now and Edwards' account of what was accomplished 20 years ago goes to show how sophisticated and masterful the Chinese have become in manipulating the news media.

Mission: Beijing - Phase One

Dress athletes like retarded gang bangers


Mission accomplished.

Earth to Jack Cafferty: No Shit

Hindsight is 20/20, especially when foresight tells you the same fucking thing

On his blog at CNN.com, Jack Cafferty seems to have unwittingly stumbled upon what will, in all likelihood, stand as the revelation of the year for clueless people.

Awarding the Summer Olympics to China was a big, biiiiiig mistake.

Of course, some people have only realized this as a result of recent events:

"Controversy sprinkled with violence and ill will is accompanying the Olympic torch as it makes it way across what is supposed to be a 23-city international tour designed to build interest and good will for the summer Olympics.

Stops in London and Paris produced large-scale demonstrations by people protesting China’s human rights record. The torch has now made its way to San Francisco, where the flame is being kept in an undisclosed location for security reasons. Possibly Dick Cheney’s house."

Yep, nobody in the world could tell that awarding China -- a country with one of the world's worst human rights records -- was a bad idea until some people decided to start fucking with the Olympic Torch relay to extent that, at one point, it had to be transported by bus.

Yes, you read that right.

"Yesterday - protesters there scaled the Golden Gate Bridge and tied a Tibetan flag and two banners calling for a “free Tibet”. There’s a 6-mile relay planned in San Francisco tomorrow, but already one runner dropped out because of safety concerns.

Meanwhile, the President of the International Olympic Committee tells the A.P. that the group’s board will discuss Friday whether to end the international part of the Beijing Olympic torch relay because of all these protests."

Now, if only it were that simple. While the Torch relay has proven to be an excellent opportunity for protesters to make their feelings about the Beijing games known, the fact remains that they will find ways to protest.

Not that Chinese officials care a whole lot about that. In fact, they've extended their typical Orwellian public relations tactics to dealings with the international media.

"Beijing organizers have said the month-long international relay won’t be stopped. In fact, the vice president of the Chinese organizing committee insisted the Olympic torch has been quote, “warmly welcomed by the local people” in each city. Communist China’s version of Baghdad Bob."

Yep, and that warm welcome just so happened to include scaling San Francisco's Golden Gate bridge to hang a "free Tibet" sign and French protesters extinguishing the torch numerous times (the latter case being the exact polar opposite of a warm welcome).

But it was "warmly welcomed by the local people" because a Chinese spokesperson said so. Just like Tiananmen Square never happened because the Chinese media was largely forbidden to cover it, and forced to parrot the state's propaganda whenever it was mentioned.

"Here at home, there have been growing calls for President Bush to boycott the opening ceremony of the games. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is the only head of state to join with Mr. Bush and announce he’ll attend. Several world leaders have decided to skip the ceremony and many others remain undecided."

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has also announced he won't be attending.

It's also been reported that Canada's federal cabinet is considering a full-out boycott of the games although Harper has doubts about the effectiveness of such a boycott.

Although it should be remembered that China, one of the world's worst polluters, also has smog problems that are making many athletes rethink participating in the first place.

"Of course, this whole scenario might have been prevented ages ago if the IOC had listened to those who argued against awarding the Olympic Games to China in the first place because of their human rights record.

Here’s my question to you: Did the International Olympic Committee make a mistake awarding the summer games to China?"

And here's your answer, Jack: fuck, yes they did. Oh, did they ever.

Of course, it isn't as if they didn't have a choice. Bids from Paris, Osaka and Toronto were rejected in favour of the country that is currently the world's largest human rights abuser. (Istanbul, Turkey had also submitted a bid, but considering its own history in regards to its Armenian, Greek and Kurdish population it should have been rejected under the same principles that should have necessitated Beijing's rejection.)

It's truly amazing how quickly the International Olympic Committee was willing to toss aside the very principles they claim make it so important. On its website, the IOC insists "The Games have always brought people together in peace to respect universal moral principles."

Principles such as "it's wrong to torture your own citizens". Principles such as "it's wrong to oppress people for their religion". Principles such as "it's wrong to run your citizens over with tanks if they protest in favour of democracy".

You know, those universal moral principles. The very ones that then-IOC president Juan Samaranch deemed unimportant.

(He has since revealled that he hopes China will support Madrid's 2016 bid for the games -- a little quid pro quo, perhaps? Not much unlike the quid pro quo that cost Jamie Sale and David Pelletier their rightfully-earned Gold Medal in Salt Lake City?)

So, yes. Awarding the Olympics to China was, to put it lightly, a massive fucking mistake. The tarnish it has left on the Olympic rings is one that Juan Samaranch, and those who voted with him, will ultimately have to answer for: if not before his colleagues at the IOC, then in the pages of history.

Of course, that's only the half of it. The protests are unsurprising. Anyone who knew about China's human rights record -- and we all know it came up during the selection process -- knew that these protests would happen.

If those protests alone, in hindsight, make it obvious the Olympics shouldn't have been elected to Beijing, then foresight had to say the same thing.

As Close to a Boycott as We Should Get

Harper sitting Beijing Olympics out

With all the human rights-related protest in advance of this summer's Olympic games in China reaching a fever pitch, many continue to call for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics.

Today, Canadians among them received news that Canada is going to get as close to that as it's going to get. Prime Minister Stephen Harper will not attend the opening ceremonies.

"I would continue to urge China to respect human rights and peaceful protest, not just in Tibet but everywhere," Harper announced. "And I would also encourage the government of China to understand that its growing wealth, its growing profile in the world and of course the profile of the Olympics will put a greater and greater spotlight on its record in this regard."

"My strong advice would be to take these concerns seriously because I think they are likely to grow rather than diminish if we see a repetition of the current pattern."

Of course, it's a long way short of a full-out boycott, and many of those who have been calling for a boycott likely won't be satisfied by it.

But frankly those who are calling for the boycott just happen to be, conveniently, the people with the absolute least to lose from such a boycott. Put oneself in the shoes of an athlete who has been training their entire lifetime to pursue their Olympic dream, and it doesn't take long to figure out that denying these people their (likely) once in a lifetime opportunity simply wouldn't be right.

Harper sitting out the Beijing Olympics sends a message to China. Perhaps not as strong as message as many people would like, but a message nonetheless.

It's as close to a boycott as Canada is going to get, and those with a minimal personal investment in the Olympics should be satisfied with it. They likely won't be, but they should be.