The 'mianji' (making face) Olympics

The recent SBS recent Insight program "Going to China" was enlightening in the individual comments and insight on the Beijing Olympics, human rights, Tibet and media freedom.

A reference by a journalist and ex competitor in comparing Tokyo, Seoul and Moscow with Beijing displayed unusual journalistic ignorance in the history, timing and events relating to these three Games and of China today. More research into the methodology and raw data preparation and (Chinese Communist Party) CCP policies may also give new insight for journalists using the well worn and questionable "400 million raised from poverty" phrase. More time may be well spent researching more reliable external sources for statistics on China and just what the poverty line is in China.

What were some of the basic reasons for granting the games to Beijing?

To improve China's shocking record on human rights?

To improve freedom of the media to report on controversial matters?

To improve China's rapidly degrading environment and shocking air pollution?

If these were the IOC's objectives, then after listening to the AOC representative's responses to imposing conditions on China to achieve these goals, it would appear that the IOC may have a credibility problem.

Why negotiate unenforceable terms and conditions?

For once, I am forced to agree with Bob Brown. While his summary and options were made with some tongue in cheek, they did make realistic comparisons when it comes to human rights.

Simon Balderstone's resort to using the flogged phrase "force for good and catalyst for change" suggests lack of insight into the real China.

The IOC proclaimed its confidence of BOCOG's (Beijing Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games) compliance with the terms of the agreement following the 10th and final official meeting with the IOC Coordination Committee.

Responding to earlier concerns about freedom of movement for foreign journalists in China, the IOC claimed that the agreement would ensure foreign journalists’ freedom to report from within China's borders in accordance with a timeline of January 1, 2007 to October, 17, 2008. It later limited the terms of reference with an oblique reference "the Beijing Olympic Organising Committee will meet its promises to allow foreign media websites to broadcast live TV broadcast of events".

The IOC's concern about China's non compliance with all commitments to host the Games appears to be token at best. This especially applies to granting foreign journalists freedom of movement within China's borders from January 1, 2007 to October, 17, 2008.

When pressed during an interview following the Tibet uprising, Kevin Gosper appeared to introduce a new phrase:

China has changed its laws to allow the international press to report on the Olympics. There was some criticism that the internet closed down during the events relating to Tibet in previous weeks but this is not Games time. Our concern is that the press has the freedom to operate as it has at previous Games, at Games time, and I'm satisfied that the Chinese understand the need for this and that they will do it.

This sudden focus, careful wording limited "to report on the Olympics" and repetition of the new term "Games time" raises real cause for concern about just what was agreed, inferred or even achieved by the IOC on this matter. The January 1, 2007 to October 17, 2008 time frame for freedom of movement for the media appears to have been a victim of the delete key and erased from the IOC and AOC memory.

During the run up to and following the conclusion of recent Olympics, foreign journalists and TV crews normally radiate out across the host countries producing a comprehensive cross section of life and landscape in those countries for global distribution. With China's spectacular countryside, then why not China?

The Gosper term "Games time" appears deliberate and seriously confuses the issue and the real meaning of the "IOC agreement" and the time frame for the freedom of movement for the media.

Are we now seeing an exercise in kowtowing and watering down violations just to avoid political unpleasantness, or to hide embarrassment or lack of responsibility in negotiation in the spirit of the Olympics?

It is about time that the IOC and the AOC discloses just what was negotiated with China that is binding, and just what "freedoms" are granted to the media under the IOC agreement.

Other questions could include:

1. where is "Games time" referred to in any IOC related agreement prior to the Tibet incident?;
2. was there a time frame changed from January 1, 2008 to October 17, 2008 to "Games time" and if so, when?;
3. does the granting of "free access" to the Internet by China allow all media throughout China this right, or just those foreign media only covering Olympic events?

The IOC is an international body charged with the responsibility of non politicised, unbiased and fair decision making. The conditions for hosting the Games are there to make an improvement.

High profile international identities have stood up to support their views on breaches of the traditions of the Games. Just where does the IOC stand?

Just what benefits can be expected for China after the 2008 Summer Olympics?

Look closer at China's impressive measures to reduce the shocking air pollution for Beijing. It trumpets that huge sacrifices are being made by shutting down polluting industries and even relocating some. The more than 140 gas stations dispensing the low quality polluting fuels will be closed. "Green buses" will transport visitors to and from venues and tourist sites. Beijing's car numbers will be reduced by nearly two million alternating access by last digit of the number plates. The old highly polluting taxies have been ordered off the roads, to be replaced by the more expensive "green taxis".

With the exception of trucks with special permits to deliver crucial goods into the city, all other trucks will be diverted around Beijing. Workers from closed industries have been ordered to return to their families in the country to limit the numbers of people in the cities. The massive migrant worker population has also been ordered out for the benefit of the visitors.

All is not what it seems however. A number of major industries are exempt from closure. Monitoring number plates, even in reduced traffic flow will be a mammoth and almost impractical task, especially with the security check points. To provide the lush green landscape for the Olympic tourists, a massive 400 million cubic metres of water has been diverted from drought stricken Hebei province.

What did the IOC expect from these commitments once the Games are over? Will the image of the "green" Beijing be permanent? Not likely! These were cosmetic changes only and never meant to be permanent! All measures were intended to temporarily minimise the pollution and improve Beijing's landscape only during "Games time".

China is about profit and Beijing will rapidly retreat back under the veil of pollution as industry once again ramps up to recover the losses caused by the shutdowns. This time the pace will be more frenetic than ever producing even greater pollution spikes.

The more than 140 gas stations will once again dispense low quality polluting fuel. The old taxis, buses and trucks will be back on the roads along with the cars spewing their exhaust fumes into the atmosphere. The heavy trucks will be working overtime replenishing stocks and transporting goods depleted or stockpiled by limited access. The green buses? Mothballed or dedicated to special tourist operations. Because of the running costs of the green taxis, these will be restricted to the business and tourist centres.

Visitors arriving in Beijing after the Games expecting to be welcomed by the promotional images of a lush green Beijing under blue skies will be in for a big shock, especially in terms of visibility, traffic jams, sore throats and streaming eyes, not to mention the grime on skin, hair and clothing.

Just why was China so committed to hosting the Games fully aware of the massive costs and imposition of human rights abuse on its own citizens? Why spend more than US$20 billion on Games related projects and greening Beijing when this massive sum could have been spent on improving the quality of life of China's more than 450 million rural poor and cleaning up its environmental mess for just a few weeks?

The answer is simple. The Games could not wait. Jiang Zemin was fully aware of the rising tide of civil unrest and saw the Olympics as a means to divert internal attention away from the growing crisis and towards not just a new platform of national pride in China, but more so in the CCP. Losing the 2004 Games was a totally unexpected major setback. The 2008 Games were to be secured regardless of cost!

Hosting the Olympics became an obsession and it was not a simple matter of national pride. With civil unrest spreading across China, the CCP was playing a game of survival and was frantically seeking ways of making face, or mianji. Within China, securing IOC approval to host the 2008 Olympics was an acknowledgement of international support and respect for the power of the CCP.

The spread of civil unrest and demonstrations are directly attributable to government corruption, illegal appropriation of farmers' land, horrific increases in pollution related mortalities and sickness, enforced community relocations and expanding desertification created by unsustainable development and draw down on declining water sources.

The Olympics appears to have given developers, and individuals, favoured by the CCP the opportunity to enrich themselves from Games related construction while thousands of the poor are forcibly relocated on inadequate or zero compensation to make way for the Olympic venues. Thousands of farmers in drought hit Hebei and Shanxi have lost all or part of their livelihoods as farms and homes were destroyed and water tables pumped dry for construction of the water diversion project. Farmers were also denied access to precious water from four of Hebei's reservoirs in times of severe drought so that the water can be diverted to Beijing to reinvigorate dry and stagnant canals and irrigate the new Green Beijing and Olympic venues and facilities.

Mianji (making face), is integral to Chinese life. Mianji is referred to by old China hands as an illusionary image to overcome a problem or embarrassment made up of "half truths, lies and damned lies". To the Chinese however, mianji is paramount to the individual, family units and corporate image. To those in power however, mianji is political survival. The image takes precedence over the means.

Mianji requires a demonstration or show of wealth, power or public acknowledgement of one's position. To admit that any challenge cannot be overcome results in diu lian, (losing face). It was this part of the Chinese psyche that the IOC appeared to ignore when tabling the schedule of commitments required to be met by China in return for hosting the 2008 Summer Olympics.

Regardless of the cost, scale or even outright impossibility to solve problems, to admit that any one of the IOC conditions could not be met would have been diu lian for the CCP. Losing the Olympics a second time would not have been be diu lian on a small scale. This would be on a global scale witnessed by the entire world and would discredit China, the CCP and the Chinese people in the eyes of all Chinese worldwide. Such an admission was inconceivable and China and the IOC signed off on the 2008 Olympics with much mianji.

When the IOC granted China the right to host the 2008 Olympics, rather than improving human rights, the IOC appears to have inadvertently granted China the licence to continue and increase human rights abuse on its own people on the basis of an agreement of unenforceable conditions. China now appears to have had no intention of compliance on key conditions. The billions of dollars that would have improved the lifestyle of China's rural poor and sick, was spent on grand projects to make much mianji for the CCP and its grand palace, Beijing.