According to the Independent today (see here) there has been a surge in nationalistic sentiment from the Chinese. Obviously this is in reaction to the several recent events. Such as the western media’s presentation of the Tibet situation and the furor that has surrounded the upcoming Olympics, but I am amazed that people think this is surprising.

If you watched any of the coverage you might have detected a vague theme of anti-china sentiment. Journalists outraged that a national government would dare to get in the way of their reporting, that’s understandable. They were dealing with a repressive regime that barely allows reporter within its borders at all and has only recently stopped treating them as spies. This needs to be challenged at every possible opportunity. This I understand and fully support.

But I noticed a very real tone of fear when speaking of China exercising its civil imperative to maintain order.  This, I feel, is because along with Brazil, Russia, and India (the BRIC countries) they are pegged by economists as being the future superpowers. For them to flex military muscle in such a public manner appears to have scared people. We, in Britain, fear being supplanted by a largely alien culture (ignoring for a moment that we might have already been). That fear is being expressed in coverage and responses to the event.

Most prevalently we see this in the talk about the Beijing Olympics. Should we go to the opening and the closing? Disgust at the Chinese government sending guards for the torch. The many attempts to extinguish the flame. The latter of these is entirely redundant. I saw the flame travel across Australia, and they let it go out at the relay in front of a crowd of schoolchildren, and then relit with a zippo. Further the flame is kept alight somewhere else at all times, so it can’t be extinguished anyway.

I find all this rather distasteful, since it is forcing politics onto sport. I don’t believe there is ever a case for this, and I cannot imagine worse spokespersons for British foreign policy than our sporting heroes. If Sports and Politics were the cosy bedfellows that people believe then Rooney should be on the Andrew Marr program, Milliband should josh with Shearer on ‘Match of the Day’.

Worse still is that talk of a boycott of the games by political figures is exactly the opposite of why the games went to Beijing in the first place. One of the stated aims of giving Beijing the Olympics was to promote international discourse and bring the global village closer together (here). It would be a perfect opportunity to flood the country with journalists and tourists and have massive, though benign scrutiny on the country and its government. It was to be triumph of ‘soft diplomacy’.
 
Boycotting, before it has even had a chance to succeed, is like putting down a puppy. Even worse is when you consider that this is all being done for the always-popular cause of Tibetan independence and support for the Dalai Lama. If there is one sentiment that the Buddhist leader would get behind it is effecting change through dialogue rather than through strong arm or bullying tactics.

Make no mistake; that is what we are seeing from western politicians. Hypocritical bullying. I don’t for a second believe that the Chinese government is entirely innocent, or even justified but we should be looking closer to home for people to condemn. Britain has invaded more countries with less reason than China. Britain has become so adept at wrangling human rights, that we now outsource our abuses and call it extraordinary rendition. Wen Jiabao should be grateful that our premier might be boycotting.