China: the Olympics is not the finish line

I'm not sure that it will enhance my credentials as a self-proclaimed moderate to endorse President Bush's foreign policy pronouncements in my first proper post, but I'm a sucker for nostalgia and by God we'll miss him when he's gone¹. The issue on which he is scoring points is China - specifically this BBC interview, in which he suggests that the West should not mix politics with sport. Despite a principled stand by a clutch of eminent figures, I'm with Bush on this one.

Why? Well, I'm no apologist for China's distasteful, hypocritical and fancifully ornate regime of subcommunists. I'm not going to wish democracy on Beijing automatically - although the signs are that it would find a more comfortable home there than in Russia - but China's "patchy" application of human rights demonstrates that change is badly-needed. Harking back to the peg-on-nose era of Cold War tyrants, the only reason that China isn't one of our bastards is its sheer size - the conventional wisdom after all is that one day soon, we'll be China's bitch.

But my instincts are that hoohah and razzmatazz, campaigning and loudhailering, letter-writing and hectoring will not in this instance make for a clean break. Rome wasn't built in a day, nor Apartheid dismantled, segregation lifted or women granted suffrage. In Burma, for instance, the promising monk riots of last year failed to turn into the coup we'd expected². What could work - what generally does work - is patience and persistence. I don't want to be glib: people will die as a result of China's policies in the mean time and there's no point denying it. But if we shout China down, it's fractious and gigantic enough to exit the tent on its own - and, like Johnson and Hoover, we don't want things to be that way around. (Sudden action doesn't have universal appeal amongst people campaigning for Darfur either).

The Olympics this year should of course be part of the campaigning - a brilliant opportunity to provide a certain amount of focus on China and the terrible issues that centre around it. But the risk that we take, in this age of banner politics, instant zeitgeists and the blurring of the lines between the grassroots and the fickle "public", is that proper ethical issues are dealt with on a "fireworks basis" - a sudden flare of attractive publicity generates intense public interest, and the pressure is on to achieve a bang before the sadly rather monochrome attention of the media moves on and the impetus is lost. Events are great for raising awareness - but the real challenge is to use them not as a finishing tape, but as a launchpad³.

Part of the reasoning here is that doing so is less likely to rub up a powerful country the wrong way at a critical time. China is hoping for a good Olympics, cynical or not; if we really spoil the party by getting heavy in the run-up, we'll only worsen our chances of a proper, challenging dialogue. China doesn't have to listen, and if those campaigning for change overplay their hand, it simply won't. This is not a recipe for trust.

Am I just trying to have my cake and eat it, by suggesting that Bush's tactic will serve the Save Darfur Coalition's laudable aim in the long run? Quite probably. This whole issue is far more complex than I can hope to discuss here, but then anything which involves balancing human suffering against the sloth of governments has a certain amount of simplicity: the suffering should stop. But it won't happen like that, and we must do the best we can. It may be slow, but it's something. And, I believe, it's often best achieved not by radical boat-rocking or ignorant collusion, but by proper, reasoned moderation. Nothing is perfect, but from where I'm standing moderation and compromise is the least worst option.


1 If you're so inclined, you can download your own countdown here. Read on.
2 It was drowned out by the Democrats (no fault of their own) but things may be looking up. Back to top.
3 This being probably the only, and certainly the greatest, example. Onward.