Broken promises
In 2001 when Beijing secured the honor of hosting the 2008 Olympic Games, it was granted on the condition China would fulfill three key promises: improve human rights, grant freedom of the press, and clean up pollution. Seven years later, how has China measured up? According to an Amnesty International report, “there has been no progress towards fulfilling these promises, only continued deterioration”:
Notwithstanding some important legislative and institutional reforms, Amnesty International considers that on balance the Chinese authorities have so far failed to fulfill their own commitments to improve human rights. In fact, the authorities have used the Olympic Games as pretext to continue, and in some respects, intensify existing policies and practices which have led to serious and widespread violations of human rights. Within the core areas monitored by Amnesty International, the only sign of significant reform is with regard to the application of the death penalty and the ability of foreign media to cover news stories in China. While these reforms are welcome, they have both been beset by structural weaknesses and a failure to make them fully operational in practice.
According to Sam Zarifi, Asia-Pacific director for Amnesty International, “This is really a significant opportunity lost for the Chinese government to show to the world that they really trust their own people … a sign of a China that is ready to take its place in the first ranks in the nations of the world.”




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top16 Comments to “Broken promises”
Great big surprise…
Yawn.
How long before we start rewarding for behaviour changed, instead of rewarding for promises of bahaviour changed?
Old adage – Watch what they do, not what they say they do.
Report comment to moderator
This should be a lesson to you all. Believing what a Marxist says is insanity – watch what they do instead. Obama proves 50% of America is nuts.
I thought what they promised was to have great fireworks at the opening and closing ceremonies, pretty little girls singing, great acrobats and fine noodles sans dog for all?
Report comment to moderator
One can view the entire security apparatus that the Olympic Games has spawned as an opportunity to demonstrate or market the police state commodities that China can produce for the rest of the world.
Naomi Klein my favorite “whack job leftist” said it best http://tinyurl.com/5aaa7s
Report comment to moderator
It’s always bothered me that we have propped up China’s human rights abuses by doing business with them for so long. I think the IOC has just done “business as usual” in this case.
Report comment to moderator
I wouldn’t trust Amnesty International farther than I could throw them. They are America-haters of the highest magnitude. They lie about America’s policies left and right. Why trust them now?
Report comment to moderator
Lester,
What do you expect? AA is made of lefties and they hate America.
Report comment to moderator
It is interesting that WMB relies on a report from Amnesty International rather than one, say, by any of the religious organizations in China.
But I guess those guys aren’t in the business of speaking truth to power…
And by the way, the IOC, composed of plutocrats from around the world has never been the least bit principled about human rights. They knew exactly what they were getting with China; my impression is that at the time they awarded the games, eight years ago, China was a lot worse than it is today.
Lester: Whom do you trust? Rush? Sean? The SBC?
Report comment to moderator
my impression is that at the time they awarded the games, eight years ago, China was a lot worse than it is today.
What is your basis for this?
Report comment to moderator
Well, My guess is, knowing how corrupt the OOC is and how wealthy they have all become, that the Chinese government paid the Olympic Organizing Committee members millions, possibly a billion, dollars to get them to vote Beijing as the host city this year. Money talks.
Then the OOC sold the rights to these games for an additional $4 billion with very little overhead and costs against it, since the host country pays all the associated costs. If the Left knew the profit margins for the OOC are 97.5% of Billions of dollars, they would claim the OOC is the cause of all the worlds ills and then tax them to steal all of it.
The Olympics remain the most profitable business ….eeerrrr… I mean the finest athletic test to find the best athletes in the world.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron: I’m really not sure. There is a tendency in the West to conflate economic freedom and progress with increased human rights; perhaps that is the source of this impression.
We all know that it is entirely possible to have a purely capitalistic yet profoundly repressive system. Nazi Germany and the nastier bits of the British Empire come to mind, as of course does the pre-abolition US.
Yet there does seem something different about post-Mao China. I believe, for example, that there has been some relaxation of the “one child” policy and there is more freedom of movement over there. One does not hear as much about what seemed like summary executions, with a bill for the bullet sent to the family.
Certainly their culture does seem more open to some things Western, like the NBA and pop music. Even their attitude towards Christianity seems to have evolved just a bit.
But they are still light years away from enjoying the kinds of constitutional protections which we, for the most part, enjoy. One has the feeling that with the flick of a finger, the leadership could extinguish all of that.
llama: The folks who run the IOC are, for the most part, wealthy long before they join. To be sure, some profit considerably from membership, but I suspect that economic gain is secondary to the power rush they all get.
Report comment to moderator
Economic freedom only ensures capitalism which is often contradictory to democracy. The Chinese have perfected totalitarian capitalism. Look at the link in #3 for understanding of the nature of the Chinese system.
Report comment to moderator
“We all know that it is entirely possible to have a purely capitalistic yet profoundly repressive system. Nazi Germany and the nastier bits of the British Empire come to mind, as of course does the pre-abolition US.”
So in your mind, National Socialism was pure capitalism? Much of the British Empire was mercantilist rather than capitalist. Capitalism as explained by Adam Smith recognizes the right of property ownership as indispensible to personal liberty. Since slaves didn’t even own their own bodies and could not offer their labor at market places, pre-abolition America was hardly capitalism in its purest form either.
Adam Smith wrote as a moral philosopher. The dismal science was only in its nascence. The capitalism he describes, and which later economists such as Milton Friedman championed, is a bulwark of liberty. Personal and economic liberty are mutually supportive and inextricable.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia is right. Although China is still a repressive Communist government, there have been improvements in several areas. However, one thought does occur to me. Should we necessarily pray for China to become more “Western” in terms of politics, economy, and society? Should we not pray for the Gospel to spread like wildfire (which it has been doing in an unprecedented fashion)? Might it be possible that the existence of a repressive government facilitates church growth? The Lord has done some of his “best” work producing disciples under repressive regimes (Please do not take this as minimizing the evils of a repressive government at all).
Report comment to moderator
Ken: Capitalism as explained by Adam Smith recognizes the right of property ownership as indispensible to personal liberty.
Nothing like redefining the problem to try to indicate that capitalism actually has a faintly beating heart. The truth is also that capitalism can’t stand free speech, the right of assembly, or the right to sue, and in the name of profit does everything it can to diminish everybody else’s rights, including those of its employees, the consumer and anybody else who gets in its way. Perhaps most importantly, todays corporate capitalism isolates and immunizes corporate officers from personal responsibility for the evils that they create.
And your mercantilism/capitalism distinction is equally sophistic.
Report comment to moderator
The term National Socialism is a misnomer. Hitler purged the party of its socialist elements after the German industrialist started funding him. As Mussolini said; they preferred to use private initiative since it was more effective than the state.
Free markets and capitalism are not tied to democracy. When democracies vote for social democratic governments which support the majority desire for more equality as opposed to private property protection, capitalism is not being support. In this way democracy acts as a impediment to the free market and right to property.
Report comment to moderator
China should have been told they had until 2006 to straighten up, or the Olympics would go to the second choice. But, as mentioned by another, the IOC is as corrupt as the Chinese government.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!