West is bear-baiting China
By Michael Backman
The Age
April 23, 2008
BEAR-BAITING was a popular pastime in medieval England. A wild bear would be captured, brought to a public
place and chained to a pole. A pack of dogs would then be let free to taunt and attack it. The bear would swipe
back wildly, much to the amusement of the assembled throng. What the bear lacked in sophistication it made up for
with brute force.
Today, the West is involved in a game of bear-baiting with China. China has been awarded the right to host the
Olympic Games, about which it has worked itself into feverish excitement and so, correspondingly, the West is in
the process of humiliating China, with the Tibet issue being the West's most effective stick. It is daring China to
respond, knowing that China won't because it does not want to risk a boycott of the Games. China is like a tethered
bear.
Face is very important in Chinese culture and in the lead-up to the Games, the West is giving China no face at all.
In the Western context, being publicly rebuked usually causes one to reflect on one's behaviour and wonder how
one might improve. But humiliating China will simply make China angry. Protests aimed at the progression of the
Olympic torch will not teach young Chinese in China that their Government is wrong on human rights. Instead, it is
reinforcing their nationalism and hardening their attitudes against the West.
Last week, protesters in China called for a boycott of local outlets of French retailer Carrefour after protesters in
France upset the Olympic torch relay. They also accused it of financing the Dalai Lama.
Of course China scores badly on human rights. We all know that. China knows that. When China's human rights
performance is compared with the West you see how far China has to go. But compare it with its recent past and
you see how far China has come.
Partly, Western activists and governments want to punish China for the sins of its past such as the killings in and
around Tiananmen Square in 1989. But it is arguable whether a Tiananmen-style crackdown is even possible
today. It is certainly far less likely. One reason is because many of the problems that caused the student protests
then have been fixed. Students chanted for democracy but few understood what that meant. What they really
wanted was better student allowances and student accommodation. They have this now.
China today is far richer than it has ever been. Its economy is now about eight times bigger in real terms today
than it was in 1989. Real income per head has grown by seven times. Economic freedom is an important aspect of
the totality of freedom — just ask any ordinary Chinese.
If human rights are measured in terms of not just the absence of tyranny but also the absence of poverty, then
China's leadership has done more for human rights for a greater number of people than anyone in history.
Media diversity has grown enormously. New laws are being drafted. Women, particularly, have benefited. They are
at the forefront of the export revolution. Jobs in factories mean that no longer are they a husband away from
poverty. No longer must they endure abusive marriages because they have no other means of support. Millions of
women in China now earn a living in their own right. But much more must be done. The pragmatic approach would
be to congratulate China on its spectacular progress and then point out ways for further progress.
Tibet is important but it should not be allowed to capture the human rights debate. For one, it is not obvious that
human rights abuses are worse in Tibet than elsewhere in China. Is freedom of worship severely curtailed in Tibet?
Not so, judging by the numbers of monks, and yet elsewhere in China, for example, Falun Gong has been all but
wiped out. Human rights abuses are almost certainly worse among China's minority Uyghur population. Executions
among the Uyghurs are believed to be higher than anywhere in China. But who cares? The Uyghurs are Muslims.
The Dalai Lama chose to flee Tibet. But other disenfranchised leaders choose to stay put. Aung San Suu Kyi is
one example. While the Dalai Lama decamps from one Grand Hyatt to the next, Aung San Suu Kyi remains under
house arrest in her dilapidated Rangoon house.
And who fled with the Dalai Lama? Certainly not ordinary Tibetans. The bulk of those who fled were members of
the nobility and their sympathisers, those who had the most to lose from the advancing communists.
When Mao's troops advanced on Shanghai, the rich of that city fled — mostly to Hong Kong.
So do the remnants of the Tibetan aristocracy, who comprise the vocal part of the Tibetans in exile, really speak
for ordinary Tibetans in Tibet? The truth is that two generations ago this feudal elite was oppressing Tibet's
ordinary folk in the most appalling manner.
Their children have never lived in Tibet and many now have the same Hollywood fantasy rosy-eyed view of it that
their Western supporters have.
It is hard to know what ordinary Tibetans in Tibet think. There are no polls to tell us.
ends