Olympic Boycotts?

Remove all ads!

Well, everyone know that Finland isnt really a country. It is just a rebellious Swedish province that the Russians stole from us and then squandered away.

The last numbers I saw about the population in Tibet was something along the lines of 60% non-"Tibetans" which would mean that for any kind of independence to come to pass there would need to be some serious ethnic cleansing of all those pesky immigrants.

 

Oh indeed. It absolutely suggests coordination and preparation, with the idea that it will resound globally. However, I don't believe the US government has it's hand in this, if so, what about calling it 'Safran Revolution'?

If I was searching for a culprit I would have a look at private neo-liberal NGOs like the Soros Foundation or neo-conservative ones like Freedom House or somesuch outfit. They have learned their lessons and methods from earlier and government backed campaigns (much like the GOP has learned from Rove, and will apply these lessons without him). Considering the near unanimous condemnation of China, I presume that the NGOs in question are sufficiently well politically connected to suggest that the extent of support that I suspect has at least tacit support. I doubt that this is an 'open-source' thing. But of course, that is just a hunch.

There is a reason why Putin has showed such intolerance toward western NGO activities in Russia. It has to do with Russia being weary of the habitual American instrumentalisation of value-based policies, meaning the wrapping security goals in the language of democracy promotion, blurring the distinction between democracy promotion with the search for particular political outcomes that enhance those security goals. The KGB did that with the Western Left quite successfully during the Cold War, and Putin certainly knows that, after all he played a part in this.
For all that it has no difference whether an NGOs is a private entity or government sponsored, American or European. From a very conservative point of view it remains a challenge to a country's sovereignty (for much the same reason US arch-conservatives oppose the value-based intrusion of institutions like the International Criminal Court into US sovereignty).

American conservatives habitually scoff at those arrogant NGOs like PETA or Greenpeace who crown themselves keeper of their causes and agendas. Now what if a EU or Mexican funded NGO decide that the Bush administration must go and starts funding and training in seminars Democrat or general opposition activists or ethnic minorities (what about Hispanics) on practical activism and on how to best escalate a demonstration into a brutal government backlash that makes for a great discrediting photo op? Or if some Russian billionaire's NGO does the same? The question of who's responsible for NGO actions is a very interesting one, with acute practical implications.

Irrespective of that, some broader background:
U.S. Advice Guided Milosevic Opposition - Political Consultants Helped Yugoslav Opposition Topple Authoritarian Leader

 

You forget the more or less diplomatically incompetent Swedish king who makes John Bolton look like the bringer of world peace managed to get himself to war with half of Europe and squandered Finland away to the Russians.

In any case the point about the immigration is quite good and I did not actually know that the demographics in Tibet have changed that much. One has to wonder what would have happened to the Baltic States after the Soviet union fell apart if there would have actually been a Russian majority there, I can't see a very bright future. I expect russification in the style of the minorietes of the ural region would have followed. Allways a pity when cultures are wiped out like that.

 

Chinese/Tibetan relations are old... nearly a thousand years old. AFAIK, Tibet has always been a part of China since the 13th century, in all but formal writing.

 

LMAO. I've seen his name censored on other message boards. It loses all seriousness when we talk about Thingy Pound...

He's gotta be over 60 by now, and really isn't that good looking. Now I could see his name ripped off somewhere down the line (it may have already ben for all I know, I don't watch the stuff).

Point conceded. But I still think that Samaranch and the IOC should have seen this debacle coming a decade ago and taken steps to avert it--like having the games in Toronto...

These organizations DO serve a purpose, but they go too far. While they do have some good points to make, they try to push their agenda too far--at the expense of their credibility and even their agenda...

What I think will happen is that the political ****storm will do is lead the consumers to hesitate to buy the tickets, perhaps leading to reduced financial rewards. This may lead the IOC to take more care in choosing location for future games...

 

Oh, absolutely. The same does Russia say about NGOs that try to influence Russians to topple their current government. And the Russians will add that these NGOs aren't even Russian. My pro-Tibet activist was German. He chose to identify with the Tibetan cause.

Personally, I think that NGOs, in particular such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, or the Red Cross, do much good. I have some sympathy for Greenpeace. But beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.

The point why the cons refuse PETA and Greenpeace is that they try impose an agenda that isn't considered theirs. They demourn the lack of democratic legitimacy, the lack of transparency. Nobody elected PETA or Greenpeace. What they refuse is a perceived imposition of that agenda on them, usually at their expense (think of their calls to tax 'dirty technology' or high consuming vehicles - they dare infringe on your individual wealth and property!).

And then there is transparency. What are their interests? Where does their money come from? What are the interests of the donors? That might be not so much of a problem with PETA or Greenpeace, but it sure becomes a problem as far as the extent of engagement of 'pro democracy' NGOs is concerned, which exercise more or less direct political influence in their target countries. Russia is rightfully suspicious about the activities of particularly US funded NGOs in Russia, because they fear the conflation of democracy advancement and the advancement of more palpable power politics goals (now of course, the NGOs in question will see both as synergetic (and I try to cast it as ideological as I can), once you become a real democracy, you'll automatically become pro Western (read: US); when you aren't, you're in need of some work). At least since that odd wave of colour coded revolutions in Russia's backyard, that, miraculously, brought pro-US governments into power, one might presume Russian fears are not completely baseless.

That is the reason why NGOs like Amnesty International refuse to embrace the Tibetan cause, and nations in general. They are keenly aware that siding with a country would nullify their neutrality, and credibility. They are concerned with human rights, irrespective of borders and regardless of who rules whom. For that view I have a great deal of sympathy.