As the spectacle of the 2008 Olympic Games comes to a close, it is apparent that China was largely successful in their attempt to crackdown on any type of public protests that would interrupt or tarnish China's image. 10 days into the Olympic Games, the Chinese Government had yet to permit any protests in three designated protest zones that were sanctioned for the Games. 77 applications were received since August 1 and zero have been granted. Not only has China been rejecting applications to protest, but the government has also been detaining people on a preventive basis. This piece in the New York Times details the story of Gao Chuancai. He was one of the people who applied for a permit to protest in the pre-approved protest zones that were sanctioned by the Chinese government. Two weeks later, when he went to Beijing to follow-up, he was questioned for over an hour and told to return in five days. Hours later, Chuancai was picked up by police and placed into custody. Chuancai's son had not heard from him at the time of the story.
This type of behavior, the quashing of dissent, has been commonplace in China in the build-up to and during the Olympic Games. "Providing a secure environment" is often a reason that is cited in discussions of the boom of the Chinese security industry. As I have discussed and Naomi Klein has investigated, this build-up of the Chinese security industry will continue long after the last gold medal is placed around the neck of an athlete. It is part of a system that is meant to limit dissent and place the Chinese population under a constant watch reminiscent of Big Brother in the novel 1984. The Olympics functioned as a two-pronged test for China: to see if the world was ready to accept China as a global player despite their record on human rights, and to see if the newfound "surveillance society" was effective and ready for export. The answer to both questions is largely, yes. One only needs to look at the preparation for the Democratic and Republican National Conventions in order to see how dissent is both marginalized and suppressed.
The lavish preparations for the Democratic and Republican National Conventions have been underway for months. Corporate sponsorships have been lined up and finishing touches are being placed for when the world's attention will shift from Beijing, to Denver, Colorado and St. Paul, Minnesota. In addition to the scheduled speakers and high-profile guests that will be present at each convention, there are another group of people who wish to use this opportunity to make their voices heard. Various organized groups and concerned individuals are making plans to attend both conventions to protest everything from corporate involvement in the political process to the dissatisfaction with each political party's platform and views on some of the most important issues of our time. Groups such as ReCreate 68 have a whole schedule of events that they are planning for the DNC beginning on August 25 and CODEPink plans to attend both conventions to protest and dissent. Dissent is part of the backbone of a healthy democracy and Constitutional protection gives those who wish to express opposition, protection from the ruling powers who may wish to retaliate. These two political conventions allow the rest of us to see how both major political parties will handle those who wish to dissent; will their rights be embraced as part of a healthy and functioning democracy or will they be marginalized and suppressed under the banner of providing security and order?
For starters, Denver police started stocking up on pepper-spray guns thanks to a $50 million federal grant that was issued:
"But the city has refused to disclose exactly how it is spending all the federal security money, which last month prompted the American Civil Liberties Union to file a civil lawsuit alleging the city is violating the Colorado Open Records Act. Releasing the information is “contrary to the public interest” because it could disclose important tactical information, potentially jeopardizing security, city officials said."
The ironically titled "Free Speech Zones" or "Protest Zones" have been set up in both cities to give protesters a designated area in which they can express their views. For the DNC in Denver, groups such as the ACLU have argued that the designated "zone" is so far away (at least 200 yards) from the Pepsi Center, that the protesters will not be heard. Some of the rules that have been slated for protesting in Denver have included the following:
* The protest zone will be 53,414 square feet in the south corner of Lot A, a parking lot near the Pepsi Center's main entrance.
* The zone will be surrounded by a fence that people can see and hear through.
* Parades will start near 14th Avenue and Bannock Street, head west on Colfax Avenue, then north on Speer Boulevard to Larimer. Pedestrians may then walk through the Auraria campus to the protest zone at Seventh Avenue and Auraria Parkway.
* Parades will be allowed only between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., and no alternate routes are allowed.
* Details such as how many people will be allowed inside the protest zone, whether protesters will be able to use sound amplifiers and if everyone entering will be subject to search have not been decided or have not been made public.
In addition to the construction of these so-called protest zones, there will be a large presence of military and police officials who will be in-part coordinated by a "fusion center". These centers are becoming more present since 9/11 and in Denver, will be used by federal and local law enforcement to gather intelligence and information on "suspicious activity". A piece was recently done in The Colorado Independent which discussed the fusion center in Denver and its activities in the build-up to the Democratic National Convention. From the article:
"Central to the efforts is Colorado’s “fusion” center, a place designed to facilitate intelligence sharing among federal, state and military agencies in an effort to prevent terrorism. But civil rights advocates fear that the Colorado Information Analysis Center, (CIAC) now housed in an inconspicuous office building in Centennial, a southern suburb of Denver, could enable unwarranted spying on Americans exercising their First Amendment rights at the convention."
Not only is new information being gathered for the approaching conventions, but old information is also being analyzed. I-Witness Video has reveled that the CIA is receiving information about protests that were held during the 2004 Republican Convention in New York City. I-Witness Video has also released documents which contain the notes and intelligence that were gathered on protest groups and potential protesters in the lead-up to the 2004 Convention. All 603 pages of those documents can be viewed here.
In addition to the construction of "protest zones" and the expansion of intelligence gathering, the CBS affiliate in Denver recently reported on how police will detain people arrested at the DNC. Local police have constructed a makeshift holding facility inside a warehouse that is owned by the City of Denver. Each "cell" is 5 yards by 5 yards with barbed wire lining the top of the cages. There is a lock on the door and a sign that reads "Warning! Electric stun devices used in this facility." A video report from CBS4 on the issue is below:
As all of this information is brought to light it is increasingly important that dissent is protected as a sign of a healthy democracy. There has been some media attention that has focused on the crackdown on dissent in China, but there needs to be greater examination of the crackdown of dissent domestically. "Free Speech Zones" should not be limited to a section of a parking lot that is surrounded by a chain link fence, rather the term "Free Speech Zone" should apply to the entire country. The rights of those who dissent should not limited in the name of security, but their rights should remain strong to act as a check against tyranny. As the pomp and circumstance of the Democratic and Republican Conventions get underway, we must take a look at how the rights of the protesters are (dis)respected and ask what it tells us about the country in which we live and the direction in which we are headed.
This article can also be viewed at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
China and the 2008 Olympic Games: Commercialization, Surveillance, and Political Influence
Much of the focus in the U.S. media on the 2008 Olympic Games has revolved around the athletic accomplishments of athletes representing the United States. There has also been some coverage in the corporate media that has discussed the human rights abuses that surround China as well as the crackdown that the Chinese government has imposed upon those activists that wish to see a free and independent Tibet. While this type of story gets limited airtime, much of the media coverage in the United States has been of a more traditional nature; coverage of athletes and their quest for gold and old rivalries renewed by the spirit of competition. As the Olympics descend upon Beijing this year, it is critical to look at some issues that surround China and China's relations with the United States. Some argue that these issues should be kept separate so as not to tarnish the "spirit of the games", but with China's continued emergence as a global market force, it is only appropriate to give some of these issues attention. Three issues that need the critical focus that corporate coverage often lacks are the commercialization of the games, the emergence of China as a surveillance society, and the rise of political influence from the West.
Commercialization of sporting events in nothing new. Many people watch the Super Bowl for the commercials alone, NASCAR race cars are plastered with company logos, and celebrities can easily obtain a second income from product endorsements. What is new, is the level of commercialization that surrounds the Olympic games. The very involvement of so many global companies with the Olympics immediately shifts the games from not just healthy sporting competition, but to a global business venture for giant corporations. Editor Robert Weissman has written a new piece in which he states:
"A record 63 companies have become sponsors or partners of the Beijing Olympics, and Olympics-related advertising in China alone could reach $4 billion to $6 billion this year, according to CSM, a Beijing marketing research firm."
Weissman is an editor of the Multinational Monitor and they have just released a report which analyzes "how commercialization is overrunning the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games". The report discusses how sponsorships and branding campaigns have eclipsed the very spirit that the Olympics are meant to embody. This includes sponsors such as McDonald's and Coca-Cola (companies not known for making healthy food and drink), which pump loads of money into the games while the Olympics simultaneously strive to promote healthy living and fitness. This type of hypocrisy can also be seen with the companies that make the majority of the Olympic apparel. ADIDAS and Nike have a dark history of sourcing their products from sweatshops and, as the report states, ADIDAS just announced that it is transferring some of the companies production out of China because they pay their workers too high a wage. These inherent contradictions fly in the face of what the "spirit of the Olympics" strive to promote and deserve to be covered fully.
The second issue that deserves in-depth coverage from the corporate media, is the emergence of China as a surveillance society and how U.S. defense contractors are aiding in this process. This issue has received relatively little coverage overall with the exception of an extensive piece done by journalist Naomi Klein and published in May of this year by Rolling Stone. This piece outlines the Chinese city of Shenzhen which Klein describes as "the crack cocaine of capitalism". This city was one of the few areas in China where capitalism was first implemented on a trial basis. The city boomed economically and now has a population of 12.4 million people. The city is now home to numerous American corporations and many electronics, automobiles, and apparel items are made in this city. In addition to this economic boom, Klein reports that the city of Shenzhen installed 200,000 surveillance cameras which all are fed into a nationwide network used to track every public space in the city. Elements of this program, called "Golden Shield", are being supplied to the Chinese by corporations such as IBM, General Electric, and Honeyshield and are being used to build a system which will help to prevent any massive public uprising during this time period in which the entire world is focused on China.
An important point that is made by Klein in this piece, is that free markets and free people do not necessarily go hand in hand. China is a prime example of how "free market capitalism" can thrive under a style of government that is does not at all promote freedom. The "Golden Shield" system is being built to provide 24 hour a day surveillance of the Chinese population, the ability to monitor phone and Internet access, and a system national ID's that will have an end result of providing China with a photo database of all 1.3 billion people within the country. This type of system will not only provide the Chinese government with detailed information about their population, but will allow for tight control over demonstrations and opponents of such a system.
Companies in the United States don't see the emergence of the Chinese surveillance society as a problem, they see it as an opportunity. IBM, General Electric, and Honeywell are all providing China with the infrastructure for building this "Golden Shield" technology. Everything from the computer monitoring systems to the security systems which can control thousands of cameras and track fast-moving objects. The market is ripe for these companies as well as others who are lining up to help China with its immense need to coordinate a system that can help track over a billion people. While this is certainly reason enough for concern among those in the U.S. who care about human rights, Klein quotes a British researcher named Greg Walton in her article who states that the U.S. government is not expressing outrage at this, but rather mining this type of system for ideas.
As has been shown above, American companies already have the opportunity to make big money on the over-commercialization of the Olympic Games as well as in the new Chinese market of population surveillance. In addition to these issues, the Chinese connection of advisors to both major Presidentail campaigns show a very real relevance to the 2008 Presidential election.
Ken Silverstein has written a new piece in Harper's Magazine which outlines how many bipartisan experts (tied to the campaigns of both major Presidential candidates) profit from the emerging Chinese market while simultaneously calling for constructive engagement with the country. Silverstein was on the news program Democracy Now! recently to discuss his most recent article. In the interview, he outlines how several advisors to both major campaigns have appeared regularly on television and in print without disclosing their connection to consulting firms whose business model is built upon pushing for policies that will open more economic doors with countries like China. Silverstein states in his interview:
"...you cannot open doors with Chinese government officials on behalf of Western companies unless you are on good terms. I mean, if they don’t like you, if you say a lot of nasty things about Tibet or human rights or anything else, then the Chinese government officials that you need to help you in your business are not going to be there for you."
The issue with this is not simply a lack of disclosure, but the very real possibility that many of these private-sector advisors to both campaigns could very well end up back in government jobs. Silverstein points to the example of Sandy Berger from the Clinton Administration. Prior to his time spent in the Clinton Administration, Berger worked in the private sector for Hogan & Hartson pushing for the continued normalization of trade with China. Upon his arrival in the Administration, he continued to push for the normalization of trade relations with China and the Clinton Administration ended up prioritizing normal trade relations over human rights policy by the end of their time in office. After Berger left the Clinton Administration, he went to work for Stonebridge International where he still lobbies for China to this day.
In connection with the current Presidential race, Silverstein expands on the connections of Alexander Haig and Brent Scrowcroft with both China and John McCain and of Jeffrey Bader with Barack Obama. These advisors have very strong connections with or have started their own bipartisan firms (The Scowcroft Group) that have direct ties to lobbying for favorable policies toward China. Silverstein states:
"If you look at the authors of virtually any major think tank report on foreign policy and you look down the list of who put it together, you’re almost always going to find people from these consulting firms. And again, at least let’s identify these people. I mean, you’ll see them identified as belonging to a think tank, say, but what you won’t see is, you know, a guy like [Kevin] Nealer identified as working for the Scowcroft Group. I mean, let’s get these conflicts out in the open, at least, so the public knows who’s putting together our foreign policy. "
Affiliations with these firms are often not disclosed to the public when these officials comment in the media and these same advisors have the potential to have very real sway within either a McCain Administration or an Obama Administration. Their backgrounds and agendas need to be both examined and exposed.
The three issues that I have outlined above get very little attention within the greater discussion that has surrounded the Olympic games. Instead, we hear advertiser friendly messages of unity, competition, and the human spirit. Serious issues that directly affect the Olympics are brushed aside and labeled as items that distract from the true nature of the games. What is missed, is the reality that these issues are directly connected the 2008 Olympics and its host country. Commercialization has woven itself through every corridor of Beijing and the Olympic stadiums in which the athletes will perform. The increase in surveillance has been used as an excuse to "beef up" security prior to the games in order to keep people safe, yet the long-term plans to continue construction of the "Golden Shield" speak to the pervasive nature of China's surveillance society. The connection of institutions that lobby for normalized relations with China to prominent advisors of both major Presidential candidates speak to the tangled political and economic web that is woven from the Far East, to Washington D.C. These are the issues that need addressing because the implications of each issue have the potential to last much longer than the shine on a gold medal.
This article can also be found at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com
Commercialization of sporting events in nothing new. Many people watch the Super Bowl for the commercials alone, NASCAR race cars are plastered with company logos, and celebrities can easily obtain a second income from product endorsements. What is new, is the level of commercialization that surrounds the Olympic games. The very involvement of so many global companies with the Olympics immediately shifts the games from not just healthy sporting competition, but to a global business venture for giant corporations. Editor Robert Weissman has written a new piece in which he states:
"A record 63 companies have become sponsors or partners of the Beijing Olympics, and Olympics-related advertising in China alone could reach $4 billion to $6 billion this year, according to CSM, a Beijing marketing research firm."
Weissman is an editor of the Multinational Monitor and they have just released a report which analyzes "how commercialization is overrunning the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games". The report discusses how sponsorships and branding campaigns have eclipsed the very spirit that the Olympics are meant to embody. This includes sponsors such as McDonald's and Coca-Cola (companies not known for making healthy food and drink), which pump loads of money into the games while the Olympics simultaneously strive to promote healthy living and fitness. This type of hypocrisy can also be seen with the companies that make the majority of the Olympic apparel. ADIDAS and Nike have a dark history of sourcing their products from sweatshops and, as the report states, ADIDAS just announced that it is transferring some of the companies production out of China because they pay their workers too high a wage. These inherent contradictions fly in the face of what the "spirit of the Olympics" strive to promote and deserve to be covered fully.
The second issue that deserves in-depth coverage from the corporate media, is the emergence of China as a surveillance society and how U.S. defense contractors are aiding in this process. This issue has received relatively little coverage overall with the exception of an extensive piece done by journalist Naomi Klein and published in May of this year by Rolling Stone. This piece outlines the Chinese city of Shenzhen which Klein describes as "the crack cocaine of capitalism". This city was one of the few areas in China where capitalism was first implemented on a trial basis. The city boomed economically and now has a population of 12.4 million people. The city is now home to numerous American corporations and many electronics, automobiles, and apparel items are made in this city. In addition to this economic boom, Klein reports that the city of Shenzhen installed 200,000 surveillance cameras which all are fed into a nationwide network used to track every public space in the city. Elements of this program, called "Golden Shield", are being supplied to the Chinese by corporations such as IBM, General Electric, and Honeyshield and are being used to build a system which will help to prevent any massive public uprising during this time period in which the entire world is focused on China.
An important point that is made by Klein in this piece, is that free markets and free people do not necessarily go hand in hand. China is a prime example of how "free market capitalism" can thrive under a style of government that is does not at all promote freedom. The "Golden Shield" system is being built to provide 24 hour a day surveillance of the Chinese population, the ability to monitor phone and Internet access, and a system national ID's that will have an end result of providing China with a photo database of all 1.3 billion people within the country. This type of system will not only provide the Chinese government with detailed information about their population, but will allow for tight control over demonstrations and opponents of such a system.
Companies in the United States don't see the emergence of the Chinese surveillance society as a problem, they see it as an opportunity. IBM, General Electric, and Honeywell are all providing China with the infrastructure for building this "Golden Shield" technology. Everything from the computer monitoring systems to the security systems which can control thousands of cameras and track fast-moving objects. The market is ripe for these companies as well as others who are lining up to help China with its immense need to coordinate a system that can help track over a billion people. While this is certainly reason enough for concern among those in the U.S. who care about human rights, Klein quotes a British researcher named Greg Walton in her article who states that the U.S. government is not expressing outrage at this, but rather mining this type of system for ideas.
As has been shown above, American companies already have the opportunity to make big money on the over-commercialization of the Olympic Games as well as in the new Chinese market of population surveillance. In addition to these issues, the Chinese connection of advisors to both major Presidentail campaigns show a very real relevance to the 2008 Presidential election.
Ken Silverstein has written a new piece in Harper's Magazine which outlines how many bipartisan experts (tied to the campaigns of both major Presidential candidates) profit from the emerging Chinese market while simultaneously calling for constructive engagement with the country. Silverstein was on the news program Democracy Now! recently to discuss his most recent article. In the interview, he outlines how several advisors to both major campaigns have appeared regularly on television and in print without disclosing their connection to consulting firms whose business model is built upon pushing for policies that will open more economic doors with countries like China. Silverstein states in his interview:
"...you cannot open doors with Chinese government officials on behalf of Western companies unless you are on good terms. I mean, if they don’t like you, if you say a lot of nasty things about Tibet or human rights or anything else, then the Chinese government officials that you need to help you in your business are not going to be there for you."
The issue with this is not simply a lack of disclosure, but the very real possibility that many of these private-sector advisors to both campaigns could very well end up back in government jobs. Silverstein points to the example of Sandy Berger from the Clinton Administration. Prior to his time spent in the Clinton Administration, Berger worked in the private sector for Hogan & Hartson pushing for the continued normalization of trade with China. Upon his arrival in the Administration, he continued to push for the normalization of trade relations with China and the Clinton Administration ended up prioritizing normal trade relations over human rights policy by the end of their time in office. After Berger left the Clinton Administration, he went to work for Stonebridge International where he still lobbies for China to this day.
In connection with the current Presidential race, Silverstein expands on the connections of Alexander Haig and Brent Scrowcroft with both China and John McCain and of Jeffrey Bader with Barack Obama. These advisors have very strong connections with or have started their own bipartisan firms (The Scowcroft Group) that have direct ties to lobbying for favorable policies toward China. Silverstein states:
"If you look at the authors of virtually any major think tank report on foreign policy and you look down the list of who put it together, you’re almost always going to find people from these consulting firms. And again, at least let’s identify these people. I mean, you’ll see them identified as belonging to a think tank, say, but what you won’t see is, you know, a guy like [Kevin] Nealer identified as working for the Scowcroft Group. I mean, let’s get these conflicts out in the open, at least, so the public knows who’s putting together our foreign policy. "
Affiliations with these firms are often not disclosed to the public when these officials comment in the media and these same advisors have the potential to have very real sway within either a McCain Administration or an Obama Administration. Their backgrounds and agendas need to be both examined and exposed.
The three issues that I have outlined above get very little attention within the greater discussion that has surrounded the Olympic games. Instead, we hear advertiser friendly messages of unity, competition, and the human spirit. Serious issues that directly affect the Olympics are brushed aside and labeled as items that distract from the true nature of the games. What is missed, is the reality that these issues are directly connected the 2008 Olympics and its host country. Commercialization has woven itself through every corridor of Beijing and the Olympic stadiums in which the athletes will perform. The increase in surveillance has been used as an excuse to "beef up" security prior to the games in order to keep people safe, yet the long-term plans to continue construction of the "Golden Shield" speak to the pervasive nature of China's surveillance society. The connection of institutions that lobby for normalized relations with China to prominent advisors of both major Presidential candidates speak to the tangled political and economic web that is woven from the Far East, to Washington D.C. These are the issues that need addressing because the implications of each issue have the potential to last much longer than the shine on a gold medal.
This article can also be found at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
