The Difference Between China and South Africa

Years ago South Africa's human rights record was deplorable. Blacks were treated worse than second class citizens, were imprisoned, tortured and killed for whatever reason struck the white minority. It had been going on for a very long time.

Eventually the collective conscience of the world woke up to some degree and they started hitting where it hurt: in not taking merchandise from S. Africa.It started first in 1959 in Great Britain forming into the anti-apartheid movement. A boycott against fruit, cigarettes and other goods imported from S. Africa was called and eventually by 1970 S. Africa was being ousted from any international sporting federation. In 1988 various stars held a concert/protest at Wembley Stadium in England demanding Nelson Mandela's release. British banks and companies began to sell off and get rid of S. African subsidiaries and exports. http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/aam/aamhist.html

I'm no economist but the boycotts plus the shaking of the finger of shame at S. Africa seemed to have an effect. Our liquor stores didn't carry S. African wines and I'm sure other items were boycotted. But it took thirty-five years until the first truly egalitarian elections in 1994. Thirty-five years.

But S. Africa did change. Their goods have been accepted again into other countries when their human rights level improved. Now, what about China.

We could mention the Tienanmen Square uprising of 1989 as a violation of human rights that saw anywhere between 200 (what China put out) and 3,000 (what the Red Cross and Chinese student associations listed) killed because they protested the government's nondemocratic ways. We could also mention the Chinese occupation of free-ruling Tibet in 1950. Who could stand against a fraction of the Chinese population (8,000 in the Tibetan army against 40,000 Chinese)?
http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/white2.html

Now let's see, about thirty-five years to get S. Africa to overturn its apartheid policy. 1950-2007. That's fifty-seven years of occupation for the Chinese in Tibet. The Tibetan government and the Dalai Lama live in exile. And what's been done to bring the Chinese to task for these human rights violations? A blind eye. They get to host the 2008 summer Olympics. S. Africa is kicked out of all sports organizations and China is awarded.

Why? I'm no political scientist but it seems it's just not politically or economically expedient for world governments to say anything about these violations (as it took forever in Rwanda or Afghanistan or a host of other places). No one is willing to invade China because they're a super power. They're big geographically and population wise, and of course there's that firepower aspect.

But why are there no economic sanctions against this country? With 1/5 of the world's population, can the world manage to boycott China? Yes, they could. Other countries would pour in to fill the gap cause by the lack of Chinese goods. It might be more expensive but what price, freedom? Obviously it doesn't matter that much as long as it's not your freedom. And is not a country or a person complicit by not condemning the deeds they usually say are abhorrent if they support the countries that perpetuate those deeds?

Too bad human rights are seen as only worthwhile to defend when the politics and the economy support them. Some day, hopefully soon, maybe Tibet will get back their rights, their land, their culture and their religion.