Antony Loewenstein

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

It is time for Western human rights activists to pressure China in new ways, writes Antony Loewenstein

With less than one month until the start of the Games, Beijing is trying to make itself more beautiful. Pollution is still rampant but supposedly improving. Ironically, tourism and business travel are down due to the onerous visa restrictions implemented by authorities.

Officials are nervous about what to expect. “It’s like they’re getting ready to throw a great party and then trying to restrain the partygoers,” said Bob Dietz of the New York based Committee to Protect Journalists, who couldn’t get a visa despite 20 years of travelling to China. “They’re not ready to welcome the world.”

Lindsey Hilsum, China Correspondent for Britain’s Channel 4 News, writes that party apparatchiks fail to understand what is truly needed in pleasing an international audience:

“The Chinese government prizes stability above all else, hence the strict instructions to provincial party bosses to ensure that no one with a grievance makes it to Beijing to ‘petition’ during the Games. Any protest would be regarded as a loss of face, an unspeakable embarrassment.

“But the bureaucrats have failed to understand what the rest of the world might regard as a successful Olympics. Quite apart from the sport, people want to have fun. The Sydney Olympics of 2000 are widely regarded as one of the best, because those who didn’t have tickets gathered in parks where they could eat, drink, make merry and watch the events on huge screens. Then they went out and partied. Everyone had a great time.”

Of course, China is not Australia and the comparison is slightly bogus. Chinese society is not conditioned like the West and doesn’t want to be.

In a recently released book, China’s Great Leap, by Minky Worden, the media director at Human Rights Watch, executive director of HRW, Kenneth Roth, asks: “Is there anything that outsiders can possible do to help the people of China change their country?” (One hopes that Roth isn’t suggesting that the West impose its values on a people who probably don’t want them.) He explains his thesis:

“Human rights activists should move beyond simply protesting the suppression of demonstrations or the arrest of lawyers. We should always note that Beijing, by tolerating such repression, is tacitly endorsing the abusive activity that is the subject of protest. Stop farmers demonstrating against the corrupt seizure of their land? That means that Beijing in effect supports seizure. Arrest lawyers challenging environmental degradation? That means that Beijing effectively sides with the polluter. By connecting human rights violations against protestors to the abuses being challenged, human rights activists can refocus popular discontent toward the top, and raise the cost of repression.”

The cost of repression remains alarmingly high. The Communist Party plans to continue terrorising the Tibetans and accepts that “final victory” is far off. Zhang Qingli, the hardline party secretary of Tibet, makes it clear that talks between the Dalai Lama and Beijing are a charade. The London Sunday Times writes:

“Zhang’s words make it plain the talks are a diplomatic mask to conceal China’s actual policy. His speeches, which are remarkably frank, show the government’s chosen response is a classic Marxist-Leninist propaganda and re-education campaign backed up by armed force.”

Despite the internet continuing to stimulate great social change, China faces great challenges ahead, not least the ever-growing gender imbalance, with 37 million more men than women and almost 20 percent more newborn boys than girls nationwide. The result of this in years to come is likely unrest, even greater violence.

Shanghai-based writer Mara Hvistendahl muses on this largely unreported issue:

“…Others are coming up with more practical outlets to exploit China’s new cadre of unstable young bachelors. Two years ago in Nanjing, Jiangsu’s capital, businessman Wu Gang opened the Rising Sun Anger Release Bar in a cheap hotel near the bank of the Yangtze River. The bar featured staples of Chinese entertainment like big-screen karaoke and plates of sunflower seeds but also a central catwalk where, for 100 yuan ($15) per minute, customers paid to assault the waiters, single young migrants from poorer cities to the north. If a customer preferred, his victim would dress in drag. Men “are under too much pressure,” Wu explained to me one day, as the waiters high-kicked Pepsi bottles in the storeroom. “They need a way to release it.”

The August Games are just the beginning of Beijing’s challenges.

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

We don’t need American, mainstream journalists telling us that something is wrong in China, writes Antony Loewenstein

Chinese dissidents will continue to push for democratic change. This is certain in an Olympic year, but these voices are undoubtedly stronger in the West than in their own country. Reformers have regularly experienced similar battles throughout history, from Eastern Europe during the Cold War to anti-Castro activists in Cuba.

I remember speaking to some of these dissidents in Cuba last year and being told that they wished to be better recognised in, say, Havana, as productive members of society rather than threats to national security.

Chinese bloggers are achieving small victories against authoritarian rule, but the struggle for truly alternative voices to be heard in the West is a constant challenge. For example, how willing are Western audiences to hear stories about Chinese netizens not being oppressed?

Propaganda against Tibet and the Dalai Lama continues with an exhibition at Beijing’s Cultural Palace of Nationalities and authorities are warning the Tibetan leader not to disrupt the Games.

Citizen media is gearing up for the August 8 start-date, despite the onerous restrictions. The International Federation of Journalists launched in late June a helpline and website to support thousands of foreign journalists in Beijing.

To clarify the reality of China’s current state for Western audiences, however, sometimes takes the calming words of an American media giant such as Ted Koppel to provide perspective. “The U.S. relationship to China is so intricate and so deep that Americans need to know that it’s more than cheap labour at Wal-Mart or tainted toys,” Koppel said. “We’d have a hard time extricating ourselves from it.”

Well, yes, but who has been creating those stereotypes in the first place? Koppel’s colleagues in the mainstream media.

But the scale of August’s spectacle, and the political risks in doing so, was perfectly realised by McClatchy Newspapers’ Tim Johnson:

“These will be no ordinary Olympic Games. They will be the most extravagant ever put on, designed to dazzle the world and display China’s reclaimed status as a major world power.

“Reaching into its deep pockets, China has erected awe-inspiring new buildings and sports venues, spending an estimated $40 billion, or three times as much as Athens did four years ago.”

China will be expecting some global respect for its efforts. Even taxi drivers are nervous about the event. The BBC reports that gold, silver and bronze have been brought to China from mines in Australia and Chile. Nothing is being left to chance.

Human Rights Watch this week provided a sobering reflection on the challenges facing activists in the Communist country:

“The Chinese government has prohibited local Chinese-language media from publishing unflattering news ahead of the Games, leaving foreign media as the only source of factual reporting about a wide range of crucial issues in China today. But systematic surveillance, obstruction, intimidation of sources, and pressure on local assistants are hobbling foreign correspondents’ efforts to pursue investigative stories.”

Minky Worden, the editor of “China’s Great Leap: The Beijing Games and Olympian Human Rights Challenges” and media director at Human Rights Watch told IPS news service that although the organization doesn’t back a boycott of the Games, they hoped world leaders would act accordingly and “condition their attendance at the highly political opening ceremony on specific human rights improvement.” She went on:

“The year 2008 is also the 30th anniversary of Deng Xiaoping’s reforms and opening policy which transformed the country by allowing economic freedoms – but not allowing political freedom or basically human rights. So you could say that the next leap forward for China needs to be in the area of press freedom, the rule of law and basic human rights.”

Will Australian, Mandarin-speaking Prime Minister Kevin Rudd speak honesty to the Chinese leadership?

My following article appeared in yesterday’s edition of Crikey:

64 people have been arrested for blogging their views since 2003, according to a recent University of Washington report. Three times as many people were arrested for blogging about political issues in 2007 than the year before. More than half of all the arrests since 2003 were made in China, Egypt and Iran. Internet censorship has become a key global concern.

These issues — and more – were discussed at the recent Global Voices Citizen Media Summit 2008, held in Budapest. The aim of the two-day event, sponsored in part by Harvard University and Google, was to bring 200 writers, dissidents, bloggers, human rights activists and citizen journalists from across the world to discuss the role of Western multinationals in web filtering — and how bloggers are increasingly challenging the narrow focus of the mainstream media and creating alternative, online spaces for minorities (in, say, Bolivia and Syria) to transmit their messages to the world.

Representatives from various countries, including Madagascar, Venezuela, Kenya, China and Egypt, gave the event a wonderfully diverse flavour but common themes emerged. Everybody wants to be heard. And using YouTube, Twitter, Flickr, FeedBurner, blogs, mobile phones, Facebook and LiveMotion in countries such as Pakistan, Armenia, Belarus and Singapore is one way to circumvent the authoritarian impulse of often US-backed dictatorships.

It was constantly stressed that the internet can’t bring real democratic reform on its own but the web has become an invaluable organising tool to generate political change. Of course, some bloggers just want to write about food, fashion and fast cars.

One session, “The Wired Electorate in Emerging Democracies”, featured Iranian-exile Hamid Tehrani (whose report on the country’s anti-Semitic bloggers offers a sobering perspective on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s pernicious influence). Tehrani argued that Iran’s reformist bloggers, often seen in the West as moderates, have become relatively unpopular and disorganised. They are “serial losers” who are unlikely to regain power any time soon.

Armenian journalist Onnik Krikorian in his country saw the use of YouTube to highlight irregularities such as vote stuffing which forced the regime to defend its actions to the world. Activists also posted YouTube footage of police shooting demonstrators.

Another session, “When Biases Meet Biases”, discussed the ways in which the troubles over Tibet and the Beijing Games have left Chinese netizens and Western audiences more distant than ever. Leading US-based dissident Xiao Qiang said that the internet, rather than finding rational voices over sensitive issues, actually pushed ideologies and opinions to extremes. Calls were made for greater understanding of opposing positions. For example, are most Chinese really opposed to Tibetan self-determination, or are only the loudest nationalists being heard?

Antony Loewenstein was invited to present a paper on the importance of NGOs in assisting on-the-ground activists, the proposed Rudd-government plan to censor the web and his work with Amnesty International Australia on its Uncensor campaign about internet repression in China in this Olympic year. His speech can be found here.

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

We ignore the diversity of China’s web community at our peril, writes Antony Loewenstein

Is the West afraid of Chinese patriotism? Some Chinese bloggers think it is but remain aware of the ways in which such sentiments could be misunderstood around the world. One wrote:

“…I love the country, and fervently so. But regardless of how passionately patriotic I am, my goal is to see China be able to continue its economic development, social stability, and continuous political reforms so as to keep up with the times…This is what worries me every time I see patriotism rising up again, wondering if it will completely ruin international relations. Will it ruin our economic growth?”

A recent survey indicates that many Asian citizens are sceptical of China’s growing economic and social power. The conductors of the survey wrote: “Clearly, China is recognised by its neighbours as the future leader of Asia, but its rise does not mean US influence is waning.”

Despite these fears, however, the news last week that President Hu Jintao communicated with some of China’s 230 million netizens was a unique example of what few other world leaders would ever do. Can you imagine a US President or Australian Prime Minister spending time online with voters? “Political liberalization” is starting to occur in China.

The regime is undoubtedly parading a schizophrenic face to the world, both talking about freedom during the Beijing Games but also increasingly tightening the censorship screws. And too much of Western criticism of China ignores the role of multinationals such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft in the filtering process. Chinese-based firms are now working to assist these companies in managing unruly blog coverage or bad PR.

Of course internet censorship is continuing and there are no signs that this will cease anytime soon. Police brutality is worsening, too. A recent conference in Hong Kong tried to place this phenomenon in context and featured countless speakers who wished the Western media wouldn’t portray the Chinese people as oppressed netizens looking for liberation. There is not one single narrative to describe the Chinese internet experience and although the country maintains the world’s most sophisticated web filtering system, many users are able to debate online far more freely than before the technology’s arrival. In other words, progress is in the eye of the beholder.

On the ground, however, many of China’s citizens are paying a high price for “social harmony.” Tibetans are struggling to cope with “re-education” classes and heightened repression. An ABC reporter was allowed a brief visit this week to witness the shortened torch relay through Lhasa but he was able to gauge little from the stage-managed events. Some journalists are finding a way into restricted lands, such as the Sydney Morning Herald’s Mary-Anne Toy:

“In a meadow of blue and white irises in the nomadic grasslands of Gansu, which along with much of the neighbouring province of Qinghai formed the Tibetan kingdom of Amdo before it became part of China, three young monks arrive for an assignation. They have secretly left the Labrang monastery in Xiahe, the biggest and most influential outside of Lhasa, to meet the Herald.

“’We will never regret what we have done, even if we die, because what we are doing is for the sake of the Tibetan people,’ says one, aged 30.

“They want the return of the Dalai Lama, the release of the 11th Panchen Lama (kidnapped by the Chinese in 1995) and for Tibet to be governed by Tibetans, he says.”

Beijing will be able to navigate its way through the August Games and claim the world vindicated its tough stance against any designated troublemakers. But after the fanfare dies down, China will have experienced a year of almost unparalleled negative press.

Where to from there?

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

The Olympic Games will show the world a different kind of China, writes Antony Loewenstein

During last weekend’s Chinese Internet Research Conference in Hong Kong, Hu Yong, Associate Professor at Peking University, said that after the Sichuan earthquake, many people initially started watching TV instead of the internet, but a group of civilian reporters quickly emerged.

Zhang Dong-Sheng, Editor-in-chief of QQ.com, argued that the earthquake reaffirmed the ability of the Chinese press to act like real journalists, but there were still a lot of restrictions.

Zhai Minglei, Editor-in-chief of 1 Bao, said that fear is what holds the Great Firewall together. A poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org even found great Chinese dissatisfaction with their rulers. Furthermore, a recent study of Chinese bloggers reveals that they are more likely to criticise the status quo than the state-run press. Solidarity is no longer possible.

These developments are undoubtedly signs of progress in China. The debate may have been happening in Hong Kong, but authorities in Beijing are increasingly aware of the cultural shifts that the earthquake triggered. Local journalists are now being encouraged to avoid writing pieces about collapsed schools and grieving parents and instead focus on “heart-warming stories”. Officials are tolerating little dissent from the party line.

The impending Olympic Games is revealing this typically close-minded attitude of Beijing towards the foreign media. These issues receive little press in China itself, of course. According to a report in the Beijing Youth Daily, thousands of Chinese parents are currently naming their newborn babies, “Aoyun” (“Olympic Games”), challenging the once-popular “Defend China” and “Celebrate the Nation.”

The New York Times editorialised last week and expressed its displeasure towards the regime’s despotism (something likely to only convince authorities that the West believes it has the right to meddle in China’s affairs):

“There’s an inherent contradiction between China’s desire to invite the world to the Olympics and its effort to deny those [foreign] visitors — and its own people — the most basic freedoms. Last week, an I.O.C. official said he is convinced the Games would be a “force for good” in China. The committee and Western governments need to remind Beijing that the world is watching, and so far the picture isn’t good.”

The allegation by Washington lawmakers that their computers were hacked by forces inside China will only worsen the relationship between Beijing and America. Interestingly, this report appeared at around the same time:

“National security agencies are warning businesses and federal officials that laptops and e-mail devices taken to the Beijing Olympics are likely to be penetrated by Chinese agents aiming to steal secrets or plant bugs to infiltrate U.S. computer networks.”

The profound mistrust between China and the West is unlikely to improve in the run-up to the Games. For those outside Beijing’s inner elite, dissent is certainly growing and the internet is the perfect vehicle to express it. Writer intellectual Hu Ping explains:

“…Ever since the Tiananmen Square massacre of June 4, 1989, a chasm has emerged between the thinking of the establishment and that of regular Chinese and the growing number of dissidents. It is hard to accept what intellectuals ‘in good standing’ with the state and the party have to say: Are they being truthful, or are they merely acting as mouthpieces for the establishment?”

What Beijing will never fully counter is the legitimate challenge to its rule in places like Tibet (as the Dalai Lama said during his recent visit to Australia.) Like other imperial powers such as Russia and America, Beijing refuses to hear alternative voices when provoked.

For those who of us who welcome Washington’s declining fortunes in the world in the years since September 11, 2001, China’s rise brings a new set of challenges. Colonialism is never transparent and the Beijing Games is sadly proving the sceptics right. As speakers contemplated at last weekend’s Chinese Internet Research Conference, one blogger described the current situation in this way:

“The defining atmosphere on the Chinese internet is one of political ideology. Not to the degree of the Mao era. This is the capitalist information age. The problem, though, is that everything that you do see on the Chinese internet is ideologically correct.”

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

One-party rule is here to stay, but cracks are starting to appear, writes Antony Loewenstein.

For anybody thinking of attending the Beijing Games, China this week announced, in Chinese, the rules of the game. Religious or political banners are banned, presumably aimed at protestors keen to highlight the plight of the Tibetans, Sudanese or Uighurs.

Jacques Rogge, president of the International Olympic Committee, added his wishful thinking to the announcement: “A person’s ability to express his or her opinion is a basic human right and as such does not need to have a specific clause in the Olympic Charter because its place is implicit.” I look forward to Mr. Rogge forcefully advocating the rights of the Dalai Lama during the track and field events.

None of these human rights concerns is overly worrying many of the Olympic corporate sponsors, however. “We think the Beijing Olympics will be a great success”, said a General Electric spokeswoman. The key aim is to lure the millions of newly rich Chinese citizens. New customers are for the taking.

The consumerism of the Chinese population is routinely misunderstood. Greater economic freedom is largely not leading to stronger demands for political rights. John Lee, in a paper released last week by the conservative think-tank the Centre for Independent Studies, perfectly articulates what I discovered during my investigations in China last year:

“The rise of an alternative to the Western liberal model of development – the so-called Beijing consensus – has been the unexpected consequence of China’s rise and is proving a difficult ideational challenge for the West. Where once we placed our hopes on the me generation to push for political change, we must now confront the fact that China’s young elites believe working within a one-party state is the better bet for their and the country’s future.”

While dissent from the party line is now far more easily read thanks to the internet, most netizens are happy to meet boys and girls online, talk to friends, watch movies and buy products. Democratic reform is the furthest thing on their minds, either through inertia, happiness or fear. Prime Minister Wen Jiabao’s recent entry into Facebook land is merely a clever ploy by the regime to seem in touch with the mood of the young.

What is changing in China, on a fundamental level, is the rise of crowd-sourcing, the growing phenomenon of online crowds gathering through blogs, bulletin boards, chat rooms and instant messaging. The Sichuan earthquake has provided a recent example. China Supertrends blog explains:

“The human search engine has been operating in China, for good and for ill, for at least a year or two already. We profiled several such instances in our book, such as the Kitten Killer of Hangzhou and the infamous Chinabounder blog, both of which involved an intensive human-assisted search that sometimes bordered on a lynch-mob mentality. There are numerous other cases: The South-China Tiger photogate and, in 2008, the misidentification of an Olympic torch relay protester, the 1970’s-style ’struggling against’ a Chinese student studying in America, and the ‘I (Heart) China’ movement that spread like wildfire over MSN to millions of Chinese users in two days.”

These developments, while not radically challenging the ruling elite, is gradually eroding the power of the state and increasing the power of individuals to act together with others. How such moves may affect the mass arrival of Facebook in China remains to be seen.

Overall, like most leading powers, Beijing is happy to use the “war on terror” rhetoric against real and perceived enemies. In the lead-up to the August Games, expect peaceful protests to be viewed as a threat to the one-state ideal. We can gently encourage the regime to understand that such moves only demean its claims of becoming a truly modern state.

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

The suffering of earthquake victims should not mask the authoritarian tendencies of the ruling elite, writes Antony Loewenstein.

The ongoing humanitarian catastrophe after the Sichuan earthquake has revealed a side of China that is rarely glimpsed. After months of controversy over Beijing’s abuses in Tibet and elsewhere – and many Tibetan activists are lamenting the switch of focus – the global community almost seems relieved to be obsessed on something else (though this hasn’t stopped leading actress Zhang Ziyi chastising participants at the recent Cannes Film Festival for knowing little about the disaster.)

Israel has provided aid to victims. Jewish news agency JTA writes: “In a gesture of support, one of the world’s smallest countries is sending aid to the world’s most populous nation in the form of $1.5 million worth of equipment for earthquake relief.”

One American teacher living and working in Beijing wrote in the New York Times: “As tragic as the Sichuan earthquake has been, perhaps it can do some good by helping dispel a widespread myth: that the new generation of Chinese students are materialistic and selfish.” Daniel A. Bell hoped that, “events can dispel another false impression: that young Chinese are xenophobic nationalists who cheer for their country, good or bad.”

Columnist Nicholas D. Kristof expressed a similarly optimistic attitude, though perhaps naively believed that “grass-roots politics” was taking shape in the world’s most populous nation. Although parents who lost children in shoddily constructed schools are demanding action on “tofu” buildings – and bloggers are now harassing corrupt government officials – authoritarian rule is as entrenched as ever.

There is no doubt, however, that China’s rulers, at least briefly, allowed a freer society to be glimpsed and both local and foreign reporters were allowed relatively unfettered access to the disaster zone.

“In the face of such suffering”, writes China’s correspondent for Britain’s Channel 4, Lindsey Hilsum, “it would be heartless and probably over-optimistic to herald the Sichuan earthquake as the beginning of civil society and accountable government in China. And yet, this natural disaster may have done more than years of campaigning by human rights and democracy activists to force the Chinese government to start opening up.”

Realists, however – and my experience tells me that the Chinese Community Party is unlikely to relinquish its grip on power anytime soon – place the regime’s response to the quake in an historical context. Geremie Barme, professor of Chinese history at the Australian National University, says that, “People have responded generously to this vast human tragedy but many are also aware that the Party is zuo xiu, that is ‘putting on a show’ for mass consumption. There’s a tradition reaching back into dynastic times in which power-holders display their virtue through great shows of munificence through disaster relief.”

China’s global, economic power is never far from the surface and Western multinationals have every interest in joining the boom. Yahoo, Microsoft, Google and Cisco were recently grilled in Congress over their role in China. Revelations about Cisco were particularly worrying, though unsurprising. Money talks the loudest language of all. Calls for US web companies to cease locating servers in repressive regimes is one, solid suggestion.

As the Olympics begin in just over three months, it remains unclear what restrictions journalists will face during the event. Censorship is rife, with a popular bridge-building website between China’s Muslim population and Han Chinese shut down in mid-May.

None of these issues stopped one of China’s most popular websites, Sina.com, launching an English language version last week. The country’s growth confounds thinkers and critics alike.

After the devastation of the earthquake is long forgotten, the rules of the Chinese game will remain set. Human rights have rarely been a determining factor in capitalist development and Beijing has no desire to change this equation. Mr X, a foreign media entrepreneur based in China, outlined the rules of this (profitable) game:

“Ultimately, to succeed in China, businesses must assume the goals of the Communist Party as their own. One of the first steps into the market for a major multinational is to hire a government-relations director who will interpret China’s policies and articulate the company’s fealty to those policies as its “commitment to China.”

“In fact, conflating the interests of the Chinese Communist Party with the interests of businesses operating in China is what makes China Inc. work. For the last 30 years, China has been building a social system that establishes an identity between business and broader political or social interests.”

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

China’s rapid growth is often forgotten when analysing the country’s human rights record, but these issues should not be ignored in the rush for super-power status, writes Antony Loewenstein.

Amidst all the current stories about China and the Beijing Olympics, it’s easy to forget that the country has progressed extraordinarily fast in the past decade. Some facts are in order:

• 30,000: The expected number of Chinese MBA graduates in 2008. The number in 1998: 0
• 500: The number of coal-fired power plants China plans to build in the next decade
• 540 million: Number of mobile phone users in China, with an increase of 44 million in the past six months
• 33: The number of Chinese journalists thought to be held in prisons in 2008
• 22: The number of suicides per 100,000 people, about 50 per cent higher than the global average. Suicide is the fifth most common cause of death in China, and the first among people aged between 20 and 35
• 30: The number of different animal penises on the menu at Guolizhuang, Beijing’s ‘penis emporium’. A yak’s costs about £15, while a tiger’s (which must be pre-ordered) will set you back £3,000

The rise of China continues to fascinate and frustrate the world. Very few other nations would warrant leading articles discussing the “dark side” of its existence.

Of course, China has come a long way in the last years, something revealed by this hilarious news story from 1982 about “sexy adverts” upsetting a Chinese workman. At that stage, advertising had only returned to public visibility after years of being banned as a “bourgeois capitalist practice.”

The last months have revealed intense anger towards perceived Western-led, anti-Chinese media coverage. Death threats against foreign journalists is increasing, according to a recent warning issued by the Beijing-based Foreign Correspondents Club. Chinese bloggers want to talk about patriotism and protestors in Korea who attacked Chinese students during the torch relay. Interestingly, Vietnamese bloggers recently expressed their displeasure about past Chinese behaviour.

Despite these issues, however, the regime is busily trying to present a welcoming face to the hundreds of thousands of visitors expected in August. The news that authorities won’t guarantee web freedom during the Games is a bad omen as is the arrest of yet another freelance writer. Zhou Yuanzhi was charged with “inciting subversion of state power.”

Tibet remains a thorn in the side of the authorities (and a provocative piece in last week’s Financial Times argued that the province had a stronger international law case for self-rule than Kosovo). The Dalai Lama and his cause are still misunderstood in the West. The leader of the Tibetan people is angry towards China but remarkably conciliatory. The charged area of Xinjiang remains under the Chinese jackboot.

While the political masters attempt to avoid potential embarrassments, Western multinationals continue to operate like business as usual (despite Google being investigated by Chinese officials for possibly breaching state secrecy laws by showing “illegal” maps of the country.)

Google co-founder Sergei Brin told last week’s shareholder meeting that he was “pretty proud of what we’ve been able to accomplish in China…Google has a far superior track record than other internet search companies in China.” What’s a little censorship when there is money to be made? Unveiling a translation service to rival search engine’s Baidu’s dominance is a clear sign of future directions. At least Reporters Without Borders asked a few pointed questions at the Adidas shareholders meeting about the company’s attitude to human rights abuse in China. They received little positive response.

The Western fear of China is never far below the surface, however. China bashing is the favoured sport of the American presidential nominees but achieves little. Respectful dialogue between the various sides is the only rational way forward.

China, the Beijing Olympics, Tibet and corporate sponsorship are a toxic mix.

So where to from here, a Chinese blogger asks?

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

There are small signs that Chinese nationalism is being tempered by more thoughtful analysis of the motherland, writes Antony Loewenstein.

The Olympic torch relay has arrived in China. Unsurprisingly, the route in North Korea was protest-free.

Away from the Western media, however, the ethnic Uighur population are calling on the world to boycott the route through East Turkestan, alleging human rights abuses. Darfur campaigner Mia Farrow arrived in Hong Kong to highlight Beijing’s complicity with the Sudanese regime. American Jewish leaders are urging Jews to boycott the Games.

Nobody should expect the remaining leg of the torch to be trouble-free. Any number of minorities will attempt to disrupt the route, especially in Tibet itself, despite the undoubtedly excessive Chinese police presence.

The result of global outrage over Tibet and China’s human rights abuses continues to generate intense nationalism at home. The regime remains unsure how to manage the conflicting challenges. On the one hand it wants to show the world that its citizens love the motherland and don’t take kindly to Western lecturing. On the other hand, foreign investment is central to the country’s rapid economic rise and officials fear intense anti-Western sentiment may scare away much-needed financial support. Recent anti-French protests in China failed to generate the expected interest.

The reasons behind the nationalist surge are explained by Canberra-based, ANU Sinologist Geremie Barme who writes that, “many observers feel they have seen a sort of “export authoritarianism” masquerading as Chinese patriotism.” He continues:

“It is noteworthy that some bloggers in China are also disgusted by the self-indulgent rhetorical hysteria of their (generally) middle-class countrymen and women overseas. They say that they’d like to see them go back to China and fight for political reform, media freedom, and human rights on home turf rather than making an hubristic spectacle of themselves internationally.”

Jin Jung-kwon, a lecturer in German studies at Chung-Ang University in Seoul, says: “China seems to have no intention of making the Olympics a festival that people around the world can enjoy together.” It’s a sentiment that I’ve heard across the Western blogosphere. If the Chinese regime has to choose between cool and controlled, writes the Australian’s Rowan Callick, “they will always opt for the latter.” Especially in the year of the Olympics. It is even more remarkable, therefore, to read about a Tibetan blogger in Beijing continuing to discuss the reality on the ground in her homeland.

Away from the political controversies, Chinese officials are attempting to appease global fears over air pollution for the Beijing Games. China is home to one in three of the world’s smokers – during my visit last year I was constantly suffocating under a haze of smoke in seemingly every bar, restaurant and hotel – but last week announced a ban on indoor smoking.

Improving public behaviour – essential if the country will impress the tens of thousands of foreign visitors in August – is often taken into personal hands. Last year dozens of security guards used metal pipes to beat up builders having a cigarette break during the construction of the Olympic Stadium, breaking a ban on smoking at Olympic sites.

Unrest in Tibet continues and harassment of Tibetans in China proper is increasing. There are small signs of positive change, though. A Chinese student at Columbia University, after spending time with the Dalai Lama, wrote an essay with his reflections and concluded that engagement was preferable to conflict. He said:

“The meeting lasted for roughly 75 minutes, and I was deeply impressed by his sincerity and hospitality. His advocacy for non-violence, support for the Games and promise of non-independence are all consistent with what he has said and done in the West. As an ordinary overseas Chinese student, I think not only the future of Tibet requires formal discussions between Chinese government and His Holiness, but to abandon hatred and to promote harmony between Chinese and Tibetans also require continuous dialogue and communication between the two peoples, and this is the main purpose of my trip.”

Such statements would have been almost unimaginable barely a few months ago. If the recent strife leads to further dialogue between opposing parties, something positive will have emerged from a potentially diabolic situation.

Undercover in Tibet.

A Chinese student’s interview with the Dalai Lama.