NOT!

So I’m listening to NPR on the way to work this week, and I hear Steve Inskeep talking to the Chinese ambassador about the riots and violence in Tibet over the past few weeks. I was floored. The ambassador (Zhou, I think his name was) consistently ignored Inskeep, who repeated the same question at least three times that I recall.

Zhou claimed that the Dalai Lama is not looking for autonomy or socio-cultural preservation, but an independent state. He characterized the attacks not as a riot or the culmination of many problems bubbling beneath the surface, but as violent criminal acts without reason or provocation. He said there was no evidence of ethnic conflict and that they were only doing this to disrupt the 2008 Olympics.

The question Inskeep repeatedly asked was something along the lines of,”Do you think the rioting happened because of legitimate concerns about Tibetan autonomy/grievances with the Chinese?” Zhou ignored it every time until the end, where he finally said (to paraphrase),”no, it’s not about autonomy, it’s not about ethnic conflict, these people are nothing but criminals.”

When Steve pointed out that the Chinese were ignoring the four days of peaceful protests before that, or that the fact that Chinese- and Muslim-owned businesses were targeted specifically indicates ethnic conflict, he was again ignored.

Shitty.

Listening to the Chinese ambassador speak was an exercise in patience. It mirrors the frustration I feel when I see the current administration dodging or ignoring important questions or completely stonewalling investigations. We may bark about how China is communistic while preaching the evils of communism, but if we do we will miss the similarities to what our government has been up to in recent years.

Now is a great time to inventory of all the ways our government has been running an authoritarian regime, for it is not Communism that makes the Chinese oppressive, but authoritarianism. Forced integration with Tibet, state-run media, tightly controlling what foreign journalists are allowed to see, throwing dissenters in prison, excessive use of execution. These aren’t Communist principles, they’re the outcome of authoritarian governing.

Dictionary.com defines the word “authoritarian” as follows:

au·thor·i·tar·i·an /????r??t??ri?n, ????r-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-thawr-i-tair-ee-uhn, uh-thor-] –adjective

1.	favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.

2.	of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.

3.	exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent.

–noun

4.	a person who favors or acts according to authoritarian principles.

This is one of those rare cases where every definition seems to apply. Let’s start with number one: Obedience and subjugation to authority. In the United States, this can pretty much be summed up with Cheney’s recent answer to the figures that show 2/3rds of Americans oppose the Iraq war: “So?”

I think more than anything this shows the natural attitude of resentment that those with authority can have towards those without. “I’m in charge here, you’re under me, you’re supposed to obey me, I know what’s best.” It’s my will over your will.

Other examples can be observed through the actions of President Bush. Telling Joe Lieberman that the reason we should trust his decision to go to war with Iraq, the reason we’ll succeed, is because of his instincts rather than because of actionable intelligence or a reviewed case by experts and advisors. This is typical of the arrogance that often accompanies authoritarian policy: we believe we’re right no matter what.

Another example is the administration’s treatment of the press. Certain questions dealing with serious or otherwise important matters are considered unacceptable and are usually not answered. One grievance of the press is the administration’s intentional lack of availability. At a press conference during John McCain’s recent publicized visit to the White House, at the end of the session one reporter demanded weekly press conferences with the president or White House spokesperson. In response, Bush ignored the question and instead chided the group for their bad behavior. It’s the media’s job to report, and the administration is telling them what is and is not acceptable in a society where freedom of the press is a guaranteed right.

China may run the media and control what gets inside Chinese borders or what gets beyond, but our officials ignore reporters, deny them access, attempt to cover up their activities and do their best to hinder any kinds of investigations or investigative reporting.

The 9/11 Commission is a good example. Bush and Cheney, after intially opposing the panel being created, finally agreed to be interviewed–but not by the whole panel. Instead, they’d meet with the panel’s top two officials and limit the questioning, if that is indeed what took place, to a mere hour. The meeting took place in private at the White House, neither Bush nor Cheney were under oath and no recordings were allowed–no media was allowed. No camera, no pictures, no transcript. Cheney, whom many see as some kind of evil puppeteer for Dubya, was with him the entire time. Condoleeza Rice also refused to publicly testify.

There’s an old adage in Washington that goes “if you have nothing to hide, don’t act like you do.” Remember all those 9/11 conspiracies gaining popularity a few years back? Ever wonder how people come up with them?

Other less-benign examples include the quashing of protests ahead of the 2004 Republican National Convention. The story linked here is pretty long, but definitely worth the read. In short, a large group of people were peacefully marching down 16th Street in NYC and were trapped as the police blocked off the entire block with orange construction netting, arrested, hauled away in busses, put in what was described as parking garages for hours and hours before being taken to a jail for many more hours. Last I checked, it’s illegal to hold someone for over 24 hours without being charged. But it wasn’t only the protesters. Some people just happened to be passing by, or saw the commotion and were curious, or were coming out of shops and diners. Some were journalists. Everyone on the block was arrested and harassed, and some were even assaulted by what appeared to be random selection.

It settles any and all debate over the Bush administration’s unconstitutional and authoritarian tactics. But of course, supporters will call the writer a liar and attack his credibility rather than the merits of the story, which are myriad. But then again, if one must see it to believe it, the article has photos, audio and video. Go ahead and click the last link I posted. Then watch the rest of the videos. Suffice it to say, China isn’t the only country that suppresses protest. What the NYPD did was violate the Constitutional First Amendment right to assembly and the Fourth Amendment protection against being arrested for no god damn reason. I’ve linked to the wikipedia entries in case you Conservatives out there, who love misquoting the Constitution and claim to uphold and defend it, get confused.

I wouldn’t be surprised if any Republicans arrested in that incident were Democrats by the time the day was over. Then again, I wouldn’t be surprised if they just accepted being abused like that and blamed it on the protesters. Sigh. Naturally, the mainstream media didn’t devote much attention to it, as it wasn’t yet stylish to publicly criticize the administration on important things like accountability, moral or legal. They were content with making fun of Bushspeak.

The PATRIOT Act, government-sanctioned police brutality, just about any Act or Law having to do with Homeland Security or domestic terror written since 2001… The list goes on and on.

Number two: centralization of authority and lack of constitutional accountability to the people. The examples in this case are plentiful and many are common knowledge, and many fall into both categories: suspension of habeas corpus, torture, the lack of Executive Branch accountability to Congress or the Judicial branch, getting away with direct disobedience to Congress, abuse of Executive privilege, using “National Security” as an excuse to completely obfuscate any matter of public record, blatant abuse of personal information for political purposes, et cetera, ad infinitum.

Number three: Excercising complete control of others’ will. I should just say “Fox News —> Conservatives” and leave it at that, but while the current administration is pro-Fox, Fox isn’t the government. For this, I’ll simply make a passing reference to certain police “compliance” tactics and, the big one, Bush’s leash on the DoJ, as evidenced by Alberto Gonzales’ protect-at-any-cost policy with the Bush administration, as well as the subsequent refusal by Michael Mukasey to enforce Congressional contempt charges against White House staff. Suffice it to say when the president (or vice president) wants something, it’s carried out or else. For evidence, one need look no further than the Iraq War commanders who’ve resigned after criticizing Bush’s policy. Heh, number four could be summed up as “Neo-Conservatives and Bush supporters.” But really, many of these examples fit into multiple definitions.

However, when observing the government’s trend in authoritarian policies it is important to acknowledge that it did not start with George W. Bush, nor will it end with him. In terms of the police, more hardline tactics were used under Janet Reno than any that come to mind when I think of Ashcroft, Gonzales and Mukasey. Waco, Elian Gonzales, numerous cases of brutality, etc.. You don’t have to be a right-winger to be a bastard.

It was Benjamin Franklin who remarked about the Constitution and the government it describes,”…this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.” Seems Mr. Franklin sees the historic pattern. And now, in the way he predicted, we’re approaching the end of the cycle. If nothing else, shouldn’t this be a cause to look at mistakes of past governments and learn something from them? Jingoist reasoning won’t suffice; “That won’t happen, this is ‘merica” is not a valid argument.

While listening to the Chinese ambassador explain his country’s actions in response to the rioting in Tibet, I thought the similarities were astounding. We’ve a way to go before we catch up to the Chinese government in terms of magnitude, but we have a hell of a good start and a mindset and determination to get there. We haven’t had our own Tienanmen Square yet, we don’t persecute the religious, and we don’t jail our journalists for doing their jobs… oh wait, yes we do.

Strange… the left is supposed to be comprised of “Commies,” yet it’s the right-wingers with business interests who buddy up to China and kiss their ass. Oh, that whole human rights/Communism thing? It gets swept under the rug.

Yet, who are the ones proposing a boycott of the Summer 2008 Olympics in Beijing? Could it be the stalwart champions of democracy, those unrelenting routers of Communism, the Conservative Republicans? From all their talk, I’d think it would have to be, wouldn’t you? Well, we’d be wrong. Instead, it’s the same group of so-called Anti-American liberals who are protesting about Darfur and Tibet, those liberal Hollywood actors, dubious organizations such as UNICEF, Reporters Without Borders, the Genocide Intervention Network, along with Nobel Peace Prize winners and various news organizations.

I wonder, is Fox News among them? They’d have to be, since they’re all about fighting the liberals and their pro-Communism ideology, right? Nope. Wrong again. I guess I’m just not with it today. The International Olympic Committee, who must certainly be dedicated to the spirit of brotherhood and world peace as symbolized by the Olympics? Nope. As David Kilgour points out, the IOC stands to gain tremendous profits off the games. Really, though, listen to the audio. The IOC committee member gets her ass handed to her on a platter.

The end result of all this? Not only is our government coming closer to mimicking China’s policy on human rights while offering a weak rhetorical slap on the wrist over it, we’re now abetting it by participating in the games and muting our criticism. I offer a different proposal: in the spirit of the Olympics, how about the rest of the world unites… elsewhere? We can have the Olympics still. In the spirit of peace, we could hold our protest event at one of the many Olympic stadiums that have served the games in the past, all around the world. China thinks it can use U.S. business interests as leverage in asking us to tolerate their disregard for humanity. But if the rest of the world (or at least most of it) locks arms in protest, maybe the greedy corporations will realize that they can take their business elsewhere. Maybe it will send that message to any government in the world: play by the rules or be left behind, because when it comes right down to it, either we accept their policies and abet their crimes or we don’t.

How about it, world?