Guy Beres

The passage of the Olympic torch through these parts of the world over the last few days has been a lot more dramatic than it usually is. I probably can only admit to having a passing interest in the world’s premier quadrennial sporting competition, but this year, the political slant of this year’s games promises to have quite profound ramifications across the international world. The recent skirmishes between the Olympic bandwagon and protesters in London and Paris throw up some interesting questions about the right way to pressure the Chinese Government into ending its seemingly malignant authority over Tibet. Like many, no doubt, I am incensed by the images of violence that have found their way out into the media in recent weeks from the troubled province. Relatively speaking, on a much milder scale, I have also found myself disgusted at the way that some torch runners have been treated by the odd rat-bag protester. That is of course an absurd juxtaposition of concerns to have when one considers the relative severity of the actions that we are talking about, but its hard not to think that the more aggressive protests aimed at the torch relay participants are representing the protest lobby in a poor light.

China is the elephant in the room of the modern global political economy. It is a superpower to be; that is, if it can not already be considered a superpower, given its population and the ubiquity of its economic power. You only have to have a look through the various items in your own house to get a thumbnail view of this ubiquity. I don’t really doubt that the Gordon Browns, the Kevin Rudds or the Nicolas Sarkozys of this world are not morally troubled about developments in Tibet and their own vague complicity in what is going on. I also don’t doubt that each of these leaders is acutely keen to avoid any rash act of political activism that does more harm than good diplomatically. Presumably, no leader with strong personal feelings on Tibet wants their act of political activism to be the straw that sets the world on a path towards another catastrophic military conflict. It is for this reason that Kevin Rudd’s reluctance to be around the Olympic torch or indeed to engage in talk of boycotts is understandable. A unilateral protest action by Australia would merely ensure that we would no longer have a credible position for engaging in talks with the Chinese. A multilateral diplomatic effort may under the right conditions achieve something, but the Olympics is far too tokenistic a platform to carry the burden of a debate of this scope.

In short, Tibet represents a seemingly intractable political conundrum. There are no easy answers, and the path towards Tibetian independence is an uncertain and risky one. It seems certain that the only path towards an eventual resolution will be paved with the (perhaps begrudging) cooperation of the Chinese. It is for this reason that the global community should avoid trivialising the issues by using the Olympics as a primary vehicle for pressuring the Chinese Government. These are clearly not problems that are going to be solved by turning our backs on a little sporting event, nicking the Olympic torch or directing attacks at the athletes and celebrities who want to honor the greatest sporting competition of our times. A resolution, if it comes at all, can only realistically be reached if the international community slowly and patiently nibbles away at the resolve of the oppressive elements within the Chinese Government.

The only alternatives to this approach imply a high risk that the bloc-centric military antagonism of the last century will return.