What's bad for the Goose is bad for the Gander

There's a little old saying that goes, "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander," meaning that two things almost exactly alike will generally experience the same effects if the same thing happens to them. Conversely, if the proverbial goose is, say, Hong Kong, and the gander is Taiwan, then we could say that 'whats bad for the goose is bad for the gander.'

Indeed, China laid a big goose egg on Hong Kong when officials in Beijing pushed back by five years the planned date for direct elections in the special administrative region, saying the earliest possible year for such a vote is now 2017. There is no reason to believe that when the year 2013 rolls around, the vote will not be pushed back to 2022, and so on, and so forth, ad nauseam.

What does this mean for Taiwan? Well, what's bad for the goose. . .

After the unhappy decree was handed down from Beijing, Hong Kong's democratic leader Martin Lee came out to say that, "I do not see Hong Kong with genuine democracy in 10 years more or 20 years more. It is just a mirage," according to an AFP news story. At this point, it is indeed reasonable to expect that Hong Kong will not enjoy open democracy until, by dint of a miracle, all of China becomes democratic.

With the head of Hong Kong's democratic goose cleanly lopped off, for all to see and just in time for New Year's dinner (t-1:30 in Taipei ; t-14:30 in Washington), the brain in the head of Taiwan's democratic gander is wondering why anyone would expect Taiwan to willingly put its neck to the chopping block (hint: chopping block = unification). From the same AFP story:

A senior Taiwanese official said Beijing's move underlined why the island could not accept reunification [sic] with mainland China.

Tung Chen-yuan, a deputy chief of Taiwan's China policy-making body, known as the Mainland Affairs Council, said the decision sent a clear signal "that the Chinese Communist Party does not allow genuine democracy.

Even the Foreign Ministry of Great Britain—which, as the port city's former colonial ruler, usually remains mute on all things Hong Kong—made a statement describing Beijing's latest anti-democratic antics "a disappointment."

Having flogged the 'goose and gander' analogy sufficiently for the entire year of 2007, we would simply like to wish all who read this a very happy New Year. See you in 2008!

Beijing in '08: No Issue Irrelevant

Today's “World News” section of the Washington Post contained an article on the Chinese government’s attempt to disassociate all international political controversies involving the People’s Republic of China from the Beijing Olympics. As reported in the article, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in the United States, “argued against efforts by activists to link participation in the Beijing-based 2008 Summer Olympics to China’s handling of Burma,” calling the issue of Burma and other regions such as Darfur “irrelevant.”

Our message to the PRC?

Good luck with that.

It would seem that the import of hosting the Olympic Games, the quadrennial international match of skill, dexterity and strength that dates back to ancient Greece, was lost on the folks in Beijing when they put in their bid for ’08. Let us look at some of the reasons why it is folly to believe that a host country’s diplomatic posture should not be altered; can even avoid alteration, during the run-up and actual passage of the Games:

1) The Olympics are about humanity.

Hosting the Olympics is a terribly attractive prospect for any government, because the successful preparation for the Olympic Games and the cultural events and security apparatus that come along with them represents an excellent chance for a government to exhibit its logistical, economic, and visionary capabilities, while at the same time displaying before the world the unique cultural identity of its citizens.

Yet along with this privilege comes great responsibility. As the world’s all-inclusive global sporting event, in their most basic sense the Olympic Games are about humankind testing of the capacities and physical limits of the human body. They are about the strength and vigor of our species. So the question the “live” or at-home spectator will inevitably ask about the host country when humanity itself is so prominently being paraded before the world public is, “What has this country done for the betterment of humanity lately?” In the case of China under the leadership of the PRC government the answer is, of course, “nothing much.”

2) The Olympics are also about equality.

The Olympics—unlike the United Nations these days—are inextricably founded upon the principle that all may participate. It is the reason the Jamaicans famously once placed a bobsled team in competition. It is also the reason why even athletes from a country as isolated as Taiwan are not and cannot be prohibited from competing on an athletically—if not politically—equal playing field with athletes from everywhere else. The Games are based on the premise that we are equal and born with inherent gifts and abilities, and that those among us with the greatest athletic abilities have the right, even the duty, to compete with their peers to push the physical limits of human strength and endurance.

3) ergo: the Olympics are about democracy.

It is no coincidence that the tradition of the Olympic Games originated in the Greek city-state remembered as the world’s first democracy. The Olympics are inherently democratic. During the Games, athletes and fans depart from every corner of the globe to converge on a single venue—to meet one another and test their common strength, weakness, and mettle via controlled competition. Ideas are exchanged, philosophies are expounded through the language of sport, and all are invited to participate. Humankind’s strength is reaffirmed through the celebration of both teamwork and individuality. These factors were no less intrinsic and valuable at the first Olympics in ancient Athens, although to the Athenians of the day the world was much, much smaller.

These three statements—that the Olympics are about humanity, equality, and therefore democracy—are, of course, rather idealistic in nature. But if there is one thing that is so blatantly obvious about the Olympics that might as well be taped to the bottom of a frying pan and repeatedly banged over one’s head, it is that these Games are about ideals. They have always been about a ideals, they always will be, and any nation that plans to host the Games should understand that its government, culture, and people will be scrutinized through the lens of those ideals. It is our personal belief that, in the case of China, the culture and the people will stand admirably up to Olympic scrutiny. China’s government on the other hand, will likely be found in relation to these ideals tragically lacking.

Thinly Veiled Threats

Some great commentary from journalist Ian Williams has been up on the Guardian's website since Monday. Apparently Mr. Williams got a little phone call from Beijing's Bureau of Public Diplomacy - Mobster Division:

Bullying and diplomacy
Ian Williams
September 17, 2007 8:30 PM


Last week I got a personal taste of Beijing's diplomacy. Their mission to the United Nations called me up and warned at the beginning and end of a 20 minute impromptu telephone debate that if I appeared on a panel with Taiwan's "so-called" President Chen Shui-bian they would "take it very seriously."

Around the world, most governments seem to quail in the face of such implied threats. In contrast, seeing no sign of Chinese gunboats in the East River, and reckoning that the worst that could happen was my missing the 2008 Olympics, the bluster reinforced my determination.On Friday I appeared not only with President Chen on a video link but with John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the UN, in person, and on Saturday on a platform with the Taiwanese sea-goddess Matsu, flown over on her own seat to New York.

I was thinking that if Bolton and I could agree on any issue, Matsu may have been working hard on the miracle front. She will have to work even harder to get Beijing in a reasonable mode.
China's diplomat told me that Chen was a trouble-maker, and took even more umbrage when I pointed out that in fact it was the mainland that was pointing almost a thousand missiles at Taiwan, and not the other way round. "We will consider that you support Taiwanese independence," she accused ominously. Actually, I pointed out that I was neutral on that question, which was up to the Taiwanese to decide, but that I did strongly support their right to decide, just as I had vociferously supported the right to self determination of the Timorese, the Sahrawis of the Western Sahara, Palestinians and Kosovans.

"That is in violation of international law," she snapped. Well, no, I pointed out. Self-determination for former colonial territories was a basic principle of the United Nations, and indeed Mao told Edgar Snow, as reported in Red Star Over China, that Formosa - as Taiwan was then known - would be able to choose its own destiny when Japan was defeated.
The PRC is more used to an attitude of "whatever you say, comrade," than being argued with, and it all just seemed to make her angrier. However, as often, the discussion made me think. Possibly the worst way to dissuade people who are determined to secede is to try to bully them. I pointed out that if forty years ago Spain had made nice with the Gibraltarians, then by now the people on the Rock would be petitioning to join Spain and buy all those giveaway fincas along the coast.

If the British had given Ireland dominion status before the first world war, Mrs Windsor would likely be making annual visits to open the Irish parliament. In contrast , much later in the century, London had conceded bilingualism, and Welsh radio and TV and in the end almost had to force the Welsh to accept devolution.

The negative examples, from Timor to Kosovo are quite clear. Battering people into loyalty is a highly ineffective strategy.

So why should anyone worry about a small faraway island of which we know little? Well of course, there is the little matter that Taiwan is a democracy, whose people want to choose their own fate, but experience teaches us that defending democracy usually only works politically in conjunction with less altruistic motives.

Well, there is one serious matter of self-interest for much of the globe. Of course it is a bit much to expect a joined-up foreign policy from the Bush administration but even so I was shocked to discover that Washington, kowtowing to Beijing, has almost no official contacts with Taiwan - even though the US is committed to defending the island against Chinese attacks. They restricted President Chen to a 15 minute stopover in Alaska on his last trip back from central America. They do not allow him to visit Washington. That is seriously worrying. US should keep its word to Taiwan. But the signals it is currently sending to China, of acquiescence to its policies towards the island, are reminiscent of those Margaret Thatcher sent to Galtieri of Argentina over the Falklands. But any conflict resulting would be far, far bigger than a side show in semi-arctic islands full of sheep and penguins.