NSW Greens don’t see their job as solely defending brutish Israel

The decision of Sydney’s Marrickville council and the NSW Greens to back BDS against apartheid Israel continues to generate predictable hysteria from the Murdoch tabloids (and that’s to say nothing of the racist, anti-Muslim diatribes being circulated by many Jews and bigots across Australia):

The Greens have threatened a trade boycott against the world’s second-largest economy in an attack on China by one of its high-profile NSW candidates.

Marrickville Mayor Fiona Byrne, who is running for the state seat, has revealed her council would consider boycotting China out of sympathy for Tibetans.

Labor labelled the policy as “stupid and dangerous” and warned such a ban could threaten Chinese trade with NSW – worth more than $3.2 billion to the state’s economy – and damage cultural and student ties with China.

“This is one of the most destructive policies announced by any mayor in Australia’s history,” Labor’s campaign spokesman Luke Foley said.

He has called for Greens Leader Senator Bob Brown to step in and rule out suggestions of a boycott of Australia’s largest trading partner.

Ms Byrne’s backing for a China ban follows her boycott of Israel last month over its treatment of Palestinians.

In retaliation, Labor and Liberal councillors have already joined forces on neighbouring Randwick Council to boycott Marrickville Council.

Her latest threats against China were recorded at a candidate forum on Wednesday night in Sydney.

Ms Byrne said her council had expressed solidarity with the local Tibetan community. While the Tibetan community had not asked specifically for a boycott, Ms Byrne said council would adopt one if asked.

“If the local Tibetan community came to us and asked us to look at boycotting China, I’m sure council would do that,” Ms Byrne said.

“So we actually have done things [for] our local community … provide action, and support our local community around those issues and I’m quite proud of that, quite proud to do that.”

Fiona Byrne should be praised for raising the issue of universal human rights, something most Western elites oppose when it affects allies. So Libya is awful and should be condemned but occupying Israel is a glorious nation struggling for its life.

And here’s a tip for Murdoch’s Daily Telegraph hack that wrote the story; getting a Labor figure to condemn the Greens, in an election where Marrickville may well fall to the Greens, isn’t really a credible source. It’s blatantly obvious and therefore simply an easy kick against an enemy your dear leader Rupert hates.

one comment

Dalai Lama too keen to avoid agitation with China?

Are these the kinds of comments that only an exiled leader would make? Perhaps and it’ll be certainly harden the views of many Tibetans that the Dalai Lama’s political skills have been less than stellar. Decades of talking and where has it got his people?

The Dalai Lama told US diplomats last year that the international community should focus on climate change rather than politics in Tibet because environmental problems were more urgent, secret American cables reveal.

The exiled Tibetan Buddhist spiritual leader told Timothy Roemer, the US ambassador to India, that the “political agenda should be sidelined for five to 10 years and the international community should shift its focus to climate change on the Tibetan plateau” during a meeting in Delhi last August.

“Melting glaciers, deforestation and increasingly polluted water from mining projects were problems that ‘cannot wait’, but the Tibetans could wait five to 10 years for a political solution,” he was reported as saying.

Though the Dalai Lama has frequently raised environmental issues, he has never publicly suggested that political questions take second place, nor spoken of any timescale with such precision.

Roemer speculated, in his cable to Washington reporting the meeting, that “the Dalai Lama’s message may signal a broader shift in strategy to reframe the Tibet issue as an environmental concern”.

In their meeting, the ambassador reported, the Dalai Lama criticised China‘s energy policy, saying dam construction in Tibet had displaced thousands of people and left temples and monasteries underwater.

He recommended that the Chinese authorities compensate Tibetans for disrupting their nomadic lifestyle with vocational training, such as weaving, and said there were “three poles” in danger of melting – the north pole, the south pole, and “the glaciers at the pole of Tibet”.

The cables also reveal the desperate appeals made by the Dalai Lama for intervention by the US during unrest in Tibet during spring 2008.

As a heavy crackdown followed demonstrations and rioting, he pleaded with US officials to take action that would “make an impact” in Beijing.

At the end of one 30-minute meeting, a cable reports that the Dalai Lama embraced the embassy’s officials and “made a final plea”.

“Tibet is a dying nation. We need America’s help,” he was reported as saying.

Other cables reveal US fears that the influence of the 75-year-old Dalai Lama over the Tibetan community in exile might be waning or that a succession to his leadership could pose problems.

In June 2008, officials reported that their visit to six Tibetan refugee settlements across north and north-eastern India “underscores concerns that frustrated and dissatisfied Tibetan youth … could pose serious problems”.

“A widening generational divide finds Tibetan leaders unable to resolve growing dissatisfaction among younger Tibetans,” the officials said.

no comments

Australia likes the role of regional bully rather well

No wonder Australia is so upset over Wikileaks; released cables show a government keen to keep military options (aka US fire-power) on the table. And Canberra’s enthusiasm for special forces in Pakistan is another worrying sign that “fighting terrorism” knows no limits, legalities or bounds:

Kevin Rudd warned Hillary Clinton to be prepared to use force against China ”if everything goes wrong”, an explosive WikiLeaks cable has revealed.

Mr Rudd also told Mrs Clinton during a meeting in Washington on March 24 last year that China was ”paranoid” about Taiwan and Tibet and that his ambitious plan for an Asia-Pacific community was intended to blunt Chinese influence.

It also reveals Mr Rudd offered Australian special forces to fight inside Pakistan once an agreement could be struck with Islamabad.

The cable details a 75-minute lunch Mr Rudd held as prime minister with Mrs Clinton soon after she was appointed US Secretary of State.

Signed ”Clinton” and classified ”confidential”, it is the first of the WikiLeaks cables that includes a substantive report on Australia.

The unprecedented disclosure of such a frank exchange between political leaders is bound to complicate Australia’s ties in the region, especially with Beijing.

At the lunch Mrs Clinton confided to Mr Rudd America’s fears about China’s rapid rise and Beijing’s multibillion-dollar store of US debt. She asked: ”How do you deal toughly with your banker?”

In a wide-ranging conversation Mr Rudd:

Described himself as ”a brutal realist on China” and said Australian intelligence agencies closely watched its military expansion.

Said the goal must be to integrate China into the international community, ”while also preparing to deploy force if everything goes wrong”.

Characterised Chinese leaders as ”sub-rational and deeply emotional” about Taiwan.

Said the planned build-up of Australia’s navy was ”a response to China’s growing ability to project force”.

Sought Mrs Clinton’s advice on dealing with the Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev, and Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, whom she labelled the ”behind-the-scenes puppeteer”.

Mr Rudd agreed any success in Afghanistan would unravel if Pakistan fell apart – and that Islamabad must be turned away from its ”obsessive focus” on India. He also discussed ways to bring China to the table in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The disclosures in the cable, posted online by the British newspaper The Guardian, will complicate Mr Rudd’s already testy personal links with China after his reported reference to Chinese negotiators as ”rat f—ers” during the Copenhagen climate change conference.

Mr Rudd gave Mrs Clinton a candid assessment of the Chinese leadership, drawing a disparaging contrast between the President, Hu Jintao, with his predecessor, saying Mr Hu ”is no Jiang Zemin”.

Mr Rudd said no one person dominated China’s opaque leadership circle but the Vice-President, Xi Jinping, might use family ties to the military to rise to the top.

Mr Rudd said he had urged China to strike a deal with the Dalai Lama for autonomy in Tibet and while he saw little prospect of success, he asked Mrs Clinton to have ”a quiet conversation” to push the idea with Beijing’s leaders.

On his plan for an ”Asia-Pacific community”, Mr Rudd said the goal was to curb China’s dominance. He wanted to ensure this did not result in ”an Asia without the United States”.

Mrs Clinton has since publicly praised Mr Rudd for his advice on China and credited him for the US decision this year to join the East Asia Summit.

Mr Rudd is in the Middle East and a spokeswoman said he did not have any comment on the release of the cable.

The Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, declined to answer questions on any damage to Australia’s ties with China or the role of Australian special forces in Pakistan arising from the revelations in the cable.

In a statement issued by a spokesman he said: ”The government has made it clear it has no intention to provide commentary on the content of US classified documents.”

In the cable, Mr Rudd appears eager to impress on Mrs Clinton his knowledge of international affairs, promising to send her copies of his speech in April 2008 at Peking University and a draft journal article on his Asia-Pacific community plan.

The thoughts of chairman Rudd

Kevin Rudd’s China strategy

‘‘Multilateral engagement with bilateral vigour’’ — while also preparing to deploy force if everything goes wrong.

Rudd on China’s military modernisation

Australian intelligence keeping a close watch, and Australia responding with increased naval capability.

On the Chinese leadership

President Hu Jintao ‘‘is no Jiang Zemin’’. No one person dominated, although Hu’s likely replacement Xi Jinping could rise above his colleagues.

On China’s attitude to Taiwan and Tibet

Chinese leaders paranoid about both. Reaction to Taiwan sub-rational and deeply emotional. Hardline Tibet policies crafted to send message to other ethnic minorities.

no comments

Imperialism with a new face is still imperialism

Hao Peng, the new vice-chairman of the regional government in Tibet, offers a novel interpretation of those living under colonialism:

No sovereign country in the world would allow the hanging of a portrait of a person like that… the Dalai Lama colluded with anti-China forces abroad to make trouble in Tibet. What you see in the streets, including the police and other legal forces, are necessary measures to maintain stability… the local, ordinary people love the country, they love the Communist Party of China.

no comments

Beijing uses oppressed blacks to justify oppressing Tibetans

The following reason given by China to continue to occupy Tibet is certainly an original way to see the world. In this reasoning, Israel could claim (and some Zionists do) that Israel is a far more benign occupier than the Egyptians and Jordanians and should therefore hold onto occupied land indefinitely:

The Chinese government had a special message for President Obama on Thursday: He is black, he admires Abraham Lincoln, so he, of all people, should sympathize with Beijing’s effort to prevent Tibet from seceding and sliding back into what it was before its liberation by Chinese troops: a feudalistic, slaveholding society headed by the Dalai Lama.

“He is a black president, and he understands the slavery abolition movement and Lincoln’s major significance for that movement,” Qin Gang, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, said at a news conference.

Mr. Qin added: “Thus, on this issue we hope that President Obama, more than any other foreign leader, can better, more deeply grasp China’s stance on protecting national sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

2 comments

The blogging revolution that’s changing the world

The following feature, by Pam Walker, appeared in the Hub newspaper on October 13:

Few would now deny the growing power of the internet and its appeal to younger readers who are turning their backs on mainstream media in favour of online content, especially blogs.

Antony Loewenstein, Australian journalist and author of My Israel Question, has just launched his latest book The Blogging Revolution, a revealing account of bloggers around the globe who write under repressive regimes.

Loewenstein decided to check out how these bloggers fared, gathering his material at private parties in Iran and Egypt, internet cafes in Saudi Arabia and Damascus, the homes of Cuban dissidents and newspaper offices in Beijing.

Here he discovered how the internet is threatening the rule of governments and how bloggers are leading the charge for change.

“It was an amazing trip. In every country I visited, except Cuba, the online community is vibrant,” Loewenstein said. “Most countries saw the internet as economic development. It was not seen as a political threat but over the last year governments have noticed and a trend of censoring and blocking websites has emerged.”

He acknowledges his book is critical of the west.

“I wrote it because I sensed in much of the western media a tendency to grossly oversimplify things, to push an unquestioning official line and to see everything through the prism of terrorism. I thought the best thing was to go to these countries and check it out for myself.”

What he found surprised him.

“There was more debate, both online and off, than I had expected, even in places like Iran,” he said. “Iran is amazingly liberal online, and there’s a lot of criticism of Ahmadinajad. Despite censorship and control there are debates going on, some liberal, some conservative, that are more robust than what you get in the west. But yes, there are many blocked sites deemed pornographic or political.

“Saudi Arabia is arguably the most oppressive country in the world but surprisingly, the web is generally unfiltered. There are lines that can’t be crossed but a growing number of Saudi women are going online which is incredibly empowering – one woman has a blog talking about enjoying buying lingerie for her partner.”

And China, which tops the world in internet usage with 250 million people online (the US is next with 230 million) has been opening up in the last five years.

“You find people discussing corruption online. In the cities and in rural areas you find campaigns and public protests against local officials,” he said. “Bloggers have started public online protests which the regime has allowed.”

Loewenstein says the strength of blogs is it allows people to be engaged politically.

“Do blogs change elections? No. Do they have input and influence on what is discussed? Yes,” he said. “Elections are so stage managed. Both political parties have ‘embedded’ journalists so citizen journalists who can write about what they are seeing can be helpful, despite the idea that if a mainstream journo doesn’t write it, it isn’t true.”

And Loewenstein says Yahoo, Google and Microsoft have all been willing to censor their search engines, and Yahoo and Microsoft have even handed over information about users who have then been jailed.

“Look at how some of these companies have operated, how they’ve excused it, posting photos of wanted Tibetans on the yahoo.china homepage. Yahoo US said it had nothing to do with that, so where does responsibility lie?”

In the US and the EU there are now moves to implement some agreement regarding companies like Google to specify that if they operate in countries with authoritarian regimes they don’t have to abide by local laws.

So has the internet advanced the march of democracy?

“Yes and no. The problem is you can monitor what people say online so it makes Big Brother more effective but it also challenges authoritarian regimes and gives people more of a direct voice.”

no comments

New ways to make news matter

My following article is published today by the Melbourne Age:

During the bruising Democratic Party tussle with Hillary Clinton in April, a citizen journalist recorded Obama saying that he understood why working-class voters in decrepit industrial towns were “bitter” and clung to “guns or religion”.

Despite being a paid-up Obama supporter, writer Mayhill Fowler worked for the Huffington Post’s Off The Bus program – around 1,800 unpaid researchers, interviewers and reporters follow the intricacies of the campaign and publish it online – and believed it was her duty to reveal the event.

It was a defining media moment, made even more significant because most of the mainstream press explaining Obama’s comments conveniently airbrushed Fowler’s work. A “real” journalist hadn’t recorded the comment and therefore could be ignored.

It was the kind of exclusionary attitude all-too-common in Western media offices. Editors tell themselves that only “professionals” should be allowed to contribute published or broadcast information to the daily news cycle. Thankfully, this broken narrative is disappearing before our eyes. Alternative models are appearing by necessity.

Participatory media could easily be adopted in Australia. What about leading media outlets utilising trusted and vetted citizens in marginal seats and giving them resources to write and investigate issues relevant to their communities? From corrupt councillors to government inaction, politicians will find it hard to ignore questions from voters in their own electorate.

Journalism skills are hardly rocket science and can be acquired with experience and a little training. These so-called amateurs could blog, maintain wikis, write articles and develop contacts that would exceed any professional reporter who simply can’t devote the time to one area.

Networked journalism both engages a wider slice of society and ensures that more segments of the debate, from conservative to the progressive end, won’t feel so unrepresented in the media.

The future of robust journalism is still being written but it certainly won’t emerge from ignoring the wishes of the masses. Off The Bus co-founder Jay Rosen defines citizen journalism thus: “When the people formerly known as the audience employ the press tools they have in their possession to inform one another.”

The current debate in the West over the dwindling resources of the mainstream media remains mired in tired paradigms. Both print and online can survive, but the relationship between the professionals and their readers has to change. Print circulation is falling across the Western world and is unlikely to shift soon. Journalists have never been so mistrusted. Media owners, with notable exceptions, are not investing in investigative work.

The only answer is to connect interested parties from a diverse cross-selection and allow them access to the tools of the media elite. I agree with American media commentator Jeff Jarvis who tells newspapers: “Cover what you do best. Link to the rest.” In other words, know your strengths and don’t waste valuable resources sending journalists on stories that can be adequately covered by a few reporters. Readers will always be instinctively drawn to the best coverage (not sloppily re-written wire copy.)

Of course, these discussions are largely irrelevant in the non-Western world, the vast majority of the planet. Newspapers and television stations in authoritarian regimes are usually little more than propaganda-producing outlets (though interestingly in many of these states circulation figures are rising.) The internet is often the only source of alternative and reliable information.

During the research for my new book, I spent time in Egypt, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and China to discuss with writers, dissidents, online gurus, citizens, bloggers and politicians the ways in which the net is challenging repressive regimes and forcing uncomfortable issues into public consciousness.

Torture, multi-party elections, an unfiltered internet, gender relations and female circumcision are just a small taste of what courageous bloggers and activists are discussing online. Even with the censorship of many websites, through the assistance of Western multinationals such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft, dissent is growing in many of these nations. But are we listening to their voices?

We are only given a tiny glimpse of these worlds in the West. I remember speaking to many middle-class Chinese twenty-somethings who resented the ways in which Western journalists stereotyped their nationalism as dangerous and foreign. As many angry bloggers told me, is it really any different to Americans celebrating and defending their government in times of crisis?

The Beijing Games proved that an anti-China narrative was alive and well in the foreign pages of our media. If reporters thought of reading Chinese bloggers writing during the event, they would have found a multitude of opinions about human rights, Tibet, the Dalai Lama and Taiwan. I waited optimistically for the publishing of these blogger’s perspectives, but it seemed that only a Western journalist’s filter was allowed to judge proceedings.

The West and the rest may seem eons apart in terms of interests and desires, but everybody craves trustworthy news and views. It’s time to engage communities to find ways in which they can contribute making sense of a rapidly shrinking globe.

Antony Loewenstein is the author of The Blogging Revolution, published by Melbourne University Press.

2 comments

Sports for the white man

The Olympic Games, from a Palestinian perspective:

So let’s hope that in the next Games we’ll see contestants competing for a medal in events such as constructing a concrete wall, mixing cement, milking cows, cleaning stairs, and digging sewage ditches along the roads of the capital of the host country.

And boycotting China?

I’m not sure exactly what the Chinese did. In a general way, I know about Tibet, human rights and ceramics that break too easily. But I agree that a country that conquers another nation, uses military force to rob a person of his freedom, tramples human and civil rights, punishes entire populations and detains them without blinking an eye, discriminates against its inhabitants on religious grounds, arrests leaders of another nation and assassinates them and scatters their demonstrations with live fire – that is a country which definitely ought to be boycotted.

no comments

Let the patriot games begin

My following article appears in today’s ABC Unleashed:

Before the Beijing Games launched spectacularly last weekend, the vast bulk of Australian media expressed general disdain for China, finding little positive to report. It was just the kind of coverage that played directly into the Communist regime’s hands; such is the widespread belief there that the Western media is unashamedly biased against the rising super-power.

Canadian writer Naomi Klein was thoughtful in explaining the Olympics should be seen for what they are; the celebration of a dictatorship:

“It is a potent hybrid of the most powerful political tools of authoritarianism communism – central planning, merciless repression, constant surveillance – harnessed to advance the goals of global capitalism.”

While many Western human rights activists are shouting about China’s atrocious abuses the voice of the Chinese themselves is virtually hidden.

After the opening ceremony, some Chinese bloggers questioned whether Mao should have been more central to the event while a Canadian/Chinese fencer was praised in the local media after she displayed a ‘patriotic’ banner. It was also announced this week that every Chinese gold winner would be awarded with a new stamp.

Conveniently forgotten in the rush to celebrate Australian medal-winners are the other voices in the global media mix (such as this fascinating article by the Chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party of Taiwan, worried that Beijing may be mimicking the 1936 Nazi Games.) We ignore non-Caucasian perspectives at our peril.

It should never be forgotten that many studies find Chinese people overwhelmingly satisfied with their lives, though the rise of the internet and satellite television has certainly increased the knowledge of social rights. McCommunism, as Noami Klein calls it, appears to be a popular ideology.

As I discuss in my forthcoming book, The Blogging Revolution, one of the key complaints of Chinese citizens, especially after this year’s torch relay debacle and pro-Tibetan protests, is the Western media’s insistence on trivialising Chinese nationalism. This recent essay, about China’s ‘neo-con nationalists’ in the New Yorker, was a notable exception. It is surely not too much to ask Western journalists, living and working in China, to try and understand the local people, rather than lecturing them on how their society should be ordered.

During my visit to China in 2007 there was an unmistakable pride in the upcoming Olympics. Writing in The Guardian this week, Muhammad Cohen explained why the Chinese overwhelming love the Games in their country:

“’I (heart) China’ serves as the Beijing regime’s succinct public response to foreign criticism of China’s human rights record: If our people love our country, then you meddlers from outside ought to just shut up.

“In China’s Olympic moment, foreign critics are focusing on all the country has failed to achieve, from its abundant air pollution to scant human rights. China’s citizens, on the other hand, see all that the country has accomplished after emerging from foreign domination and internal turmoil. They are proud of those achievements and resentful of foreigners pointing out China’s shortcomings, especially when those failings don’t bother the alleged victims.”

Like past Olympics, the Chinese media is projecting an image of uncritical adulation of its achievements, but this is little different to Sydney in 2000. Propaganda isn’t only created in authoritarian states.

Long after the Olympic spirit has left Beijing, the internet will be a central factor in continuing to shape China. Western engagement with these voices is essential if we want to avoid another Cold War. Leading blogger Isaac Mao recently revealed why the art of blogging is gradually prying open the dragon’s tight grip:

“China has a long tradition of people trying to fit into the group, moderating their behaviour to avoid standing out conspicuously – a culture reinforced by the man-made collectivism of the past half-century.

“Blogs have leapfrogged this tradition, acting as a catalyst to encourage young people to become more individual. So this and other grassroots media are now emerging strongly to challenge China’s social legacy.”

Endless foreign criticism of China will achieve little. Some Western humility during the Games would be advisable, along with legitimate calls for the state to respect human rights.

Bloggers I met in China last year almost universally told me that internet censorship didn’t bother them (a fact borne out by a recent study). They were far too busy thinking about downloading pirated movies, buying properties and meeting boys and girls.

Perhaps an appreciation of authoritarianism is an acquired taste.

one comment

Communism for Lhasa?

Are China and the Dalai Lama soon to enter an unprecedented period of rapprochement (such as the Tibetan spiritual leader visiting China for the first time in 50 years)?

no comments

Invisible Tibet

Tibetan blogger Woeser, New Statesman, July 31:

Then there are the thousands of Tibetans in Beijing. Tibetan college students have been told to go home this summer, while students at Tibetan schools are not allowed to leave the school premises. The Tibetan Studies Centre has given its staff a rare long holiday: even those we call “Tibetans hired by the imperial court”, meaning those on the government payroll, are not trusted. A Tibetan tour guide who I know was detained for a month, with no explanation whatsoever from the police.

A Tibetan artist friend was interrogated for a day because Buddhist scripture in Tibetan was found in his painting. My good friend Dechen Pemba, an ethnic Tibetan who was born in London and has been studying and working in Beijing, was deported back to the UK for reasons that were never fully explained.

As for me, if I stay in Beijing during the Olympics, I expect to be put under house arrest. So, should I go back to Lhasa? Friends and relatives there tell me: “You’d better wait until after the Olympics.”

3 comments

Confusion through the Beijing smog

My following article appears in the Amnesty International Australia’s Uncensor campaign about human rights in China:

Western critics of Beijing should be careful what they wish for during the Games, writes Antony Loewenstein

Amnesty International’s latest report on China’s human rights record makes for depressing reading.

“We’ve seen a deterioration in human rights because of the Olympics,” said Roseann Rife, a deputy programme director for Amnesty International. “Specifically we’ve seen crackdowns on domestic human rights activists, media censorship and increased use of re-education through labour as a means to clean up Beijing and surrounding areas.”

The New York Times demanded that US President George W. Bush express his concern on the declining situation. Fat chance.

Beijing’s pollution remains shocking (photo evidence here) and authorities are rightly fretting about the international reaction (though surely this is something that could have been predicted months ago.)

Leading American journalist James Fallows has issued a plea to anybody in the West wishing that the Games be a disaster for China and a PR debacle for the Communist regime. “Outsiders who think that a pollution emergency or a spiralling protest would focus domestic blame on the Chinese government are dreaming”, he blogs.

Writer Matt Steinglass disagrees, however, and echoes the feelings of many of us about China’s coming out party. His message? Let good and bad stories emerge from the Games:

“I don’t think such self-censorship would be good, and I don’t think it’s possible. There will be 22,000 journalists in Beijing next week. There is no way to shut up a journalistic mob of that size, each clambering over the next to get the story. China decided to invite the world in, to host the Olympics, in the expectation that it would receive a big boost in global respect and affection. It is about to find out what happens when you invite the world in. If Chinese don’t want foreigners viewing their country with a critical eye, they should kick the foreigners out. But you can’t throw an event to win the world’s respect and affection, screw up the event, and then complain that the world is biased against you.”

Of course, they’ll always be security concerns – one leading Israeli anti-terror expert fears for the safety of the Jewish state’s team – but such issues are paramount at every Olympics.

China has spent an incredible amount of money on the August event. According to Foreign Policy, “at least $40 billion total, including $35 billion for new roads and subway lines, $1.8 billion for venue construction and renovation, and a $2 billion operating budget.” Beijing is even starting to crack down on the country’s rampant nationalism, concerned it may frighten foreign investment and interest. Many citizens of Beijing are now being walled away from public view to keep the city “clean.”

Away from the headlines remains the story of individuals fighting a daunting system. Take Woeser, a prominent Tibetan blogger in Beijing, currently struggling to obtain a passport. It’s been more than 1150 days since she applied and she’s now planning to sue the authorities.

“For so long now, many Tibetan people have met difficulties applying for a passport”, she told the Independent. “Some people will walk for a long time, climbing snow-capped mountains to arrive in Nepal to get their right as a citizen.”

Let’s hope the Western media doesn’t ignore such stories during the August Games.

The Olympics are a unique opportunity for the global community to listen to China and not berate them. The people are not the regime. Furthermore, a great number of Chinese are undoubtedly excited about the event and want to tell the world about it, including through rap.

Individuals can do a multitude of things to show their solidarity with those suffering human rights abuses in China and Tibet.

What are you doing?

no comments