http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5638806.html China bans live Tiananmen video during Olympics Richirich band Olympic Coverage from his house. By CHARLES HUTZLER Associated Press BEIJING — Don't expect to turn on your TV during the Beijing Olympics and see live shots of Tiananmen Square, where Chinese troops crushed pro-democracy protests nearly two decades ago. Apparently unnerved by recent unrest among Tibetans and fearful of protests in the heart of the capital, China has told broadcast officials it will bar live television shots from the vast square during the games. A ban on live broadcasts would wreck the plans of NBC and other major international networks, who have paid hundreds of millions of dollars to broadcast the Aug. 8-24 games and are counting on eye-pleasing live shots from the iconic square. The rethinking of Beijing's earlier promise to broadcasters comes as the government has poured troops into Tibetan areas wracked by anti-government protests this month and stepped up security in cities, airports and entertainment venues far from the unrest. In another sign of the government's unease, 400 American Boy Scouts who had been promised they could go onto the field following a March 15 exhibition game between the Los Angeles Dodgers and San Diego Padres were prevented from doing so by police. "It was never specifically mentioned to me it was because of Tibet that there were extra controls, but there were all these changes at the last minute," said a person involved in the Major League Baseball event who asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media. The communist government's resorting to heavy-handed measures runs the risk of undermining Beijing's pledge to the International Olympic Committee that the games would promote greater openness in what a generation ago was still an isolated China. If still in place by the games, they could alienate the half-million foreigners expected at the games. Like the Olympics, live broadcasts from Tiananmen Square were meant to showcase a friendly, confident China — one that had put behind it the deadly 1989 military assault on democracy demonstrators in the vast plaza that remains a defining image for many foreigners. "Tiananmen is the face of China, the face of Beijing, so many broadcasters would like to do live or recorded coverage of the square," said Yosuke Fujiwara, the head of broadcast relations for the Beijing Olympic Broadcasting Co., or BOB, a joint-venture between Beijing Olympic organizers and an IOC subsidiary. BOB coordinates and provides technical services for the TV networks with rights to broadcast the Olympics, such as NBC. Earlier this week, however, officials with the Beijing Olympics Organizing Committee, or BOCOG, told executives at BOB that the live shots were canceled, according to three people familiar with the matter who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media. "We learned that standup positions would be canceled," one of these people said. "No explanation was given for the change." Sun Weijia, the BOCOG official in charge of dealing with BOB, declined comment, referring the matter to press officers, three of whom also declined to comment. IOC offices were closed Friday for the Easter holiday; two spokeswomen did not immediately return e-mails and phone calls seeking comment. The decision by BOCOG may not be final. The change was relayed verbally, one person said. All three hoped that IOC President Jacques Rogge and other leading IOC officials, expected in Beijing next month for regularly scheduled meetings, may be able to prevail on BOCOG to change its mind. If the decision stands, it would be a blow to the TV networks whose money to buy the right to broadcast the games accounts for more than half the IOC's revenues. The biggest spender is NBC. It paid $2.3 billion for the rights for three Olympics from 2004 to 2008 — Athens, Turin and Beijing. Officials at NBC refused to comment. The unrest — which broke out March 10 in the Tibetan capital of Lhasa and has since spread across western China — and the government's harsh response underscores the communist leaders' unease as the Olympics approach. With paramilitary police patrolling Beijing at night and journalists being expelled from Tibetan areas, security measures are on par with those not seen since the government mobilized police to crush the Falun Gong spiritual movement in 1999-2000. Activist groups have said for months that they planned to use the Olympics to promote their causes. But the challenge faced by China's leadership seems to grow more imminent. Aside from Tibet protests, the government said it foiled a plot this month by Muslim separatists in western China to blow up a China Southern Boeing 757. Foreign activists angry about China's support for Sudan, which is party to a civil war in Darfur, said this week they would demonstrate in Beijing during the games. After the Icelandic singer Bjork shouted "Tibet!" at the finale of a Shanghai concert this month, officials ordered tighter scrutiny of all performances. The Boy Scouts seemed to get caught in a response to both the sometimes violent Tibet protests and Bjork; police canceled all on-field entertainment for the exhibition baseball games, including the singing of the Chinese and U.S. national anthems. BOCOG officials began signaling their discomfort with live broadcasts in Tiananmen Square to the IOC a year ago but discussions went back and forth, according to the people involved. The square — overlooked by a large portrait of communist founder Mao Zedong — has been a magnet for protests for decades. AP Sports writer Stephen Wade contributed to this story
**** bjork. i don't care what you believe, but if you ****ing insult your fans, there is no places for you in china. i hope they ban her swan ass. i'm going to sell her cds to the pawn shop. ****ing can't stand her voice now. such a big ****ing turn off. richard gere is a w**** too. so are the beastie boys.
Hey China, you wanted the Olympics; you got 'em. (this is going to be as hilarious as the pope inviting The Amazing Randi to the canonizing of a saint)
Agreed. It's somewhat amusing watching the government trying to micromanage this whole thing as if it was a staged play. They want to manufacture this 'picture perfect' image of China that no one outside of their borders will ever buy into. I know it's a pride thing, but the cold reality is that people are unlikely to change their views/perceptions of China based on how successful the Olympics are. A classic example is what's going on now in Tibet. Banning media coverage/access to Tibet is not going to make people around the world think that everything is A-OK. If anything it's the exact opposite, it will raise suspicions that China has something to hide. In retrospect, the Chinese may regret having such a world-class event on their soil, which has only helped -- thus far -- to further scrutinize everything/everyone in Chinese society. Thus far, China has gotten nothing but negative worldwide press leading up to the Olympics. We will see what happens once it rolls around/the aftermath. Whatever happens, it should be interesting...
Did Hitler get postive press from the Berlin Olympics? I don't think that good press is what China wants out of the Olympics. Nationalism is a strange thing...
Interesting as Hitler's government had a lot of similiarities to the current Chinese one....very oppressive to people that don't ....eh.....fit in... And isn't Taiwan part of the Sadatland? DD
China didn't put them into Gas Room or Death Camp. That's a big different. Please show some respects to the dead people.
I wonder how the Chinese goverment's human rights record would compare to Nazi Germany's? I really have no idea...but you hear stories about how bad the people of Tibet are treated, and how many uprisings have been squashed with violence.....and the alleged birth control of very late abortions etc... How would it compare? DD
there are probably not much birth control issues. their ethnic population increased. there is NO 1-child policy on minorities. some of my relatives have 2 kids.
Interesting, I know that China has a massive population contained in a relatively small area, and they have their own natural resources issues.... And they are embracing capitalism, or more poiniently...greed... So, it will be interesting to watch how it all changes. DD
I think you should learn the differences between Fascism and Communism before you start compare China to Nazi Germany. Wiki is a good place to start.
Foofy, I am talking about how both treated their people's not about how their governments were structured in a org chart. DD
i personally think that if you have a population problem and opt not to control it, it's probably more dangerous than having a 1 child policy. if the population gets out of control, then we are facing the biggest starvation you will ever see. yes, it will be interesting to see how India goes from here.
i think people were treated fairly in communism. my parents and their friends always tell me how they never felt that one is better than the other when they grew up. there were no class in the society. doctors and farmers are alike. no one felt better than others. that all changed, after 80s after the introduction of capitalism. now, when they get together, some people are rich, some people are poor. even though they are friends for life, they don't see eye to eye anymore. there is now a new social class. which is one of the major reason for the riots in Tibet right now as well.
I find the vascilation by Chinese posters over whether China is communist or not to be of interest. It seems to be when you want it to be, but when 'the other side' say China is communist you flip out. Anyway... source [rquoter] Is China fascist? Magic 8 ball says... Most Likely I’m not normally one for holidays but today being July 4th I thought it would be fitting to touch upon a subject that has been traversing my mind in recent days. While it may be expected on this day to reflect on liberalism and democracy, I find a perverse sense of satisfaction in exploring the opposite. Articles focusing on the development of China have become par course in the western media as of late and one of the primary underlining themes is the possible outcome of a future Chinese state. There are many schools of thought on the future, Simon addresses many of them in this recent post, as well as the present condition of the Chinese state. For today, I won’t attempt to prognosticate any foreseeable future but rather revisit one prominent theme about contemporary China. Some people have opined that the Chinese state at present is no longer communist but rather a fascist one. I have at past argued against this interpretation but a reevaluation of one’s position is not uncommon and I find that the argument that China is fascistic has certain merit. Before I go further, I would like to address a number of issues about the discussion of fascism and China. The very word fascism itself has a certain cachet and is laden with decades of political animus and thus most of what I’ve read in regards to fascism and China tends to be politically motivated. In essence, many of whom that would describe China as fascistic are simply employing the term as a rhetorical weapon to cast aspersions against the Chinese state for their own purposes. For the sake of this discussion, I will attempt to treat the issue of fascism with a more value-neutral focus. Second, the criteria in which China is classified as a fascist state are imperfect and subjective to individual interpretation. In this I mean that some will apply disparate socio-economic attributes as symptoms of fascism when in truth they have little relevance to historical fascism. Instead of using contemporary definitions of what accounts for fascism, a historical model may be more appropriate in this case. From Mussolini’s own definition of fascism from 1932 (courtesy of Fordham’s modern history sourcebook), the fundamentals of a fascist state can be juxtaposed against the present conditions in China. [rquoter] Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death. [/rquoter] The glorification of struggle and war are not in and of themselves particularly unique in the course of either human history or China yet this issue is nonetheless is a fundamental dimension of fascism. The inevitability of conflict has been fixture of communism for decades though it has been principally focused on class. The question remains as to whether or not contemporary China is militaristic in the extreme. The answer is however not quite as transparent as desired. Much as had been in the past week or so of the development of the Chinese military yet almost all of it has been sensationalized hype to serve political agendas. The enigmatic nature of the Chinese military establishment hardly engenders trust yet its published spending figures do give an indication of its current status. China is presently engaged in modernization and not mass armament. Even accepting that the official published figures are suspect, the higher estimates are still in comparison to the civilian economy within acceptable peacetime limits. Perhaps more important that the state’s military budget is the depth of social penetration the military has in society. China, despite economic liberalization is still a fairly regimented society yet of course this must be compared to the degree of military organization in the past. [rquoter] Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society. [/rquoter] On this issue, the descriptor accurately describes China. The faux-pious rhetoric of Marxism-Leninism remains in use by the party yet has in truth been all but abandoned. Class warfare is out, first-class is in. Nationalism, as is oft-repeated, has replaced socialism as the guiding principal of the party-state and its emphasis of the emotional over the rational-economic is self evident among China’s public. [rquoter] After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage.... [/rquoter] Again this parallel’s China in fact if not name. In this instance, there is a possible schism between the party-state and the people. While the Communist Party clearly is not willing at present to voluntarily relinquish its vice-grip on power, Hu Jintao even announced that Western democracy and liberalism were a dead alley for China, it is uncertain if the Chinese people will accept this arrangement in perpetuity. However this dichotomy can easily be subsumed by the emotional aspect of nationalism. [rquoter] The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State... [/rquoter] The most vital aspect of fascism, the totality of the state, is what clearly distinguishes China as a possible fascist government. A communist government usually also happens to be statist, but it is generally accepted that the state is not an ends into itself but rather state control is an intermediary stage until the abolition of class and the creation of a stateless of society. For China having abandoned socialism, the party-state has become both the means and the end, self preservation and perpetuation of authority is the reason for its existence. Modern China, although an imperfect fit, does in most fashions classify as a nascent fascist state under Mussolini’s definitions, however whether or not this label has any significant relevance is unclear. For most people, fascism conjures the looming specter of Nazi Germany, yet of course there exists certain attributes that differentiates fascism from Nazism. History has shown the existence and surprising longevity of fascist and corporatist states that have been neither expansionist or particularly aggressive. Those axis powers that took up arms during World War 2 were all colonial powers and the conflict was in part still fueled by the residual legacy of the First World War. Other fascist states in both Europe and Latin American were neutral and uninvolved proving that the simple adulation of military prowess does not necessarily lead to the external exercise of it. If China is a fascist state, it is at present a relatively benign manifestation and not a particularly grave threat to the established liberal democratic order. [/rquoter]
