For the French (if not the Parisians) Two Million Chinese Customers Carry the Olympic Torch

After the late April anti-Carrefour/anti-French protests that broke out across China, the French government tried to rebuild its public image in China via a number of diplomatic interventions. Of the various interventions, Sarkozy’s apology letter, hand-delivered by Chistian Poncelet to Jin Jing, the disabled Chinese torchbearer who was attacked by a pro-Tibet protester in Paris, made for the best photo-op:

Before

 

After

 

And yet, it did not stop a cynical global public from asking whether such an apology would have been forthcoming from the first Western leader to suggest boycotting the Beijing Games if French businesses who had set-up shop in China weren’t losing money. Indeed, it would seem that France is conforming to what Slavoj Zizek, in a fascinating letter to the London Review of Books, identifies as the West’s usual behaviour of ceding ethical and poltical values to economic pragmatism.

In my paper, “Towards the Future: The New Olympic Internationalism”, recently published in Owning the Olympics, I suggested that the IOC could not afford to not hold the Olympics in China. I suggested that the decision to allow Beijing to host the Games can read as a sign of a shifting geopolitics where traditional assumptions about the global hegemonic position of Western states can no longer be taken for granted. Today, China is an economic superpower in an interdependent world and the fortunes of France and other Western nation-states are, in a large part, dependent on the fortunes of China. Thus, the role of diplomatic vehicles such as the Olympic Games in building stronger relations between China and the West are increasingly important. Sarkozy’s post-Carrefour about face and his refusal to respond to international NGOs, such as Human Rights Watch, who have asked him to confirm a Beijing 08 boycott can be read as evidence of a growing recognition of this interdependence.

While France may have been apologetic for the attack on the torchbearer, Paris continued to provoke China. According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Paris’ decision to make the Dalai Lama an honorary citizen of Paris “can only be considered as another grave provocation of 1.3 billion Chinese people“. As Steven Erlanger, writing in the International Herald Tribune, suggests, the decision to make the Dali Lama an honorary Parisian may primarily be a career move for Bertrand Delanoe, the current mayor of Paris who hopes to become the leader of the French Socialist Party. As Erlanger writes, “the gesture by Paris allowed Delanoe to distinguish himself from Sarkozy, who has waffled about whether he will attend…” the Beijing Games. The Chinese response to Paris indicates that the diplomatic power and global voice of world cities may actually eclipse that of the nation-states in which they’re located. One can only assume that British Prime Minister Brown felt a surge of relief when Ken Livingstone lost the recent London Mayoral contest. Livingstone, known for his sour relations with New Labour and his “radical” views on many issues, was much better positioned than Delanoe to create a major controversy given the role that London, as the next Olympics host, is expected to play in Beijing’s closing ceremonies. 

The post-Carrefour fallout has taught us that Olympics diplomacy requires heads of state to attend to two complex tasks: 1) addressing the concerns of other states; and 2) managing their own people. Sarkozy has thus far failed at the second task. In this, he is not alone. The CCP has so far failed to manage the intense nationalism that led to the anti-Carrefour protests and other anti-West and anti-French protests throughout the country. As the Economist reports, by April 20th, 2008, the Chinese government was urging Chinese citizens to respond calmly to what was percieved (correctly, in many cases) as anti-China propaganda in the West. On May 1st, 2008, despite continuing attempts to control the shamed-inflamed nationalism, the protests continued.

Two Birds with One Stone: CNN and Carrefour

The May 1st protests were considerably smaller. This may be attributed to either the government crackdown or to the ephemeral nature of nationalist outrage. At the moment, it isn’t clear. What is clear, however, is that the pro-Tibet/anti-Olympics protests in Paris, San Fransico, and other cities have had numerous effects:

1. They’ve turned the Olympic Spotlight on the interdepdence of today’s nation-states.
2. They’ve given voice to racist and xenophobic groups in both China and the West.
3. In not trying to 1) directly communicate with, 2) measure the responses of, and 3) frame the issues for Chinese audiences, they have inadvertently shamed-inflamed an antagonistic form of Chinese nationalism.
4. And, they may have helped the political career of a French mayor.

How any of this helps Tibetans, I don’t know. Perhaps this weekend’s talks between Chinese officials and envoys of the Dalai Lama will be productive and will, in the long run, be seen as resulting from the actions of Olympics protests in the West. However, that appears to be a farily optimistic prediction, especially in light of today’s news that despite these talks, China’s state press has ”accused the Dalai Lama of ‘monstrous crimes’“. In light of this news, the apparent goals of the majority of the Western protesters remain as elusive as ever, if not more so…

 

The View from Vancouver…

Vancouver 2010 is no stranger to protests. Protesters vandalized the Countdown Clock at the unveiling in February 2007. Since then, both the clock and its round-the-clock security guard have become the most iconic images of 2010 in downtown Vancouver. Protests and vandalism have been a major part of the Vancouver Olympics story from the bid onwards, with other incidents such as the theft of the city’s Olympic flag from city hall. 

And yet, as we’ve seen over the last month, these protests have not managed to capture the global (even, in many cases, national) media attention that China has. The most obvious reason is that these protests have been small scale and they’ve been about local issues that, while important (almost anything that puts a spotlight on Vancouver for it’s reprehensible treatment of the homeless and near-homeless is good in my books), fail to resonate like Tibet.

Canada doesn’t have its own Tibet… or does it? Consider the announcement last week by Phil Fontaine, the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, that Canadians who marched for Tibet in anti-Beijing 2008 rallies should be “outraged” by what’s happening in their own country. And, that perhaps the anti-Beijing torch relays should be read as a lesson for how to use the Olympics as an opportunity to tell Canadians (and, presumably) the world about the current abysmal situation many First Nations peoples in Canada face on a daily basis.

Both Olympic host cities have celebrated their ethnic minorities in order to gain points with the IOC (albeit it is backfiring in Beijing and is set to backfire in Vancouver). See, for example, Yingying, the cute Tibetan member of the 08’s Friendlies.

Unofficial Friendlies (Yingying is on top)

 

Official Friendlies (Yingying is 2nd from the right)

In Vancouver, we have the First-Nations inspired Miga, Quatchi and Sumi. They’re selling briskly, even if some Canadians have found the 2010 mascots too Asian and certainly not Canadian enough (whatever that means… maybe Quatchi should have a Timmy’s Double-Double in his paws instead of a hockey stick).

That host cities use reductionist versions of minorities to make themselves more authentic has become an Olympic tradition itself (think Sydney 2000). So, it should be no suprise that both 2010 and 2008 are trying to score authenticity points with their mascots and other media. A major difference between the two Games, however, is the key role that First Nations groups continue to play as stakeholders in 2010. Imagine such a scenario in Tibet! So, it is important to ask whether First Nations groups can be stakeholders in 2010 while simultaneously using the Olympic spotlight to embarrass Canada into action to atone for its shameful relations with First Nations in BC and across the country. Would such actions come off as two-faced? Or, would media attention that focuses on the divides and differences of opinion within First Nations groups and communities about how to interact with VANOC and other 2010 stakeholders serve to help Canadians and the world develop a more nuanced conceptualization that extends beyond understanding them as a monolithic group?

As the Tibet torch-relay protests have shown, the Olympics are a potentially powerful spotlight for making domestic ‘problems’ become subjects for global debate. They have the potential to recalibrate accepted global norms of the private and the public. Phil Fontaine clearly hopes that in 2010, protesters will be able to use the Olympic spotlight to make Canada’s ‘private’ shame the subject of global public debate.

Personally, I hope they do. But, I remain skeptical. I fear that while the Olympic spotlight is powerful, it is limited by whether the issues that protesters and other groups use it to highlight resonate with the global (aka Western) public. I contend that the power of the pro-Tibet Olympics protests are derived in part – a much larger part than we care to admit – by fears of China, the economic powerhouse, and by Jack Cafferty-style racism. The Olympic spotlight on Tibet is as much about tearing down the Chinese boogeyman as it is about Tibet. What boogeyman is going to empower pro-First Nations rights protests during the Vancouver Olympics? Somehow, I don’t think we’re ready to cast ourselves as the boogeyman. And without him, the Olympic spotlight may be much dimmer in 2010…