Thursday, September 18, 2014
  Search 
Home
Opportunities
Partners
Publications
About Us
 
 
Please enter your email here, we would like to keep you informed.
 
 
Connect With Us - Facebook RSS
<September 2014>
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930
Sections
Liberty In The News
Liberty Events
Conference Proceedings
Culture
Agriculture
Democracy
Development is the Key
Economic Freedom
Education for Life
Enterpreneurship
Environment
Freedom of Expression
Freedom to Trade
Globalization for the Good
Health is Wealth
Intellectual Property Rights
International Relations
Liberty is Security
Limited Government
Principles of Politics
Privatisation
Population - the ultimate resource
Property Rights
Regulatory Affairs
Rule of Law
Tax Freedom
Facts & Figures
Opportunities
Competitions
 Culture
 
Cultural engagement: The new diplomatic tool
Mint, India Friday, February 29, 2008

Salil Tripathi
Sports and arts boycotts are feel-good boycotts. They require no sacrifices on the part of politicians. Real change is glacial: In 2004, the creators of South Park made a wildly funny film, Team America: World Police, where superheroes tool on Kim Jong-II (who has half of Hollywood singing for him). This week, Maazel played An American In Paris in Pyongyang. Strange though it may sound, it is progress, writes Salil Tripathi in the Mint

Here, There, Everywhere: An American in Pyongyang

 

As the largest group of Americans since the end of the Korean War reached Pyongyang, performing under Lorin Maazel’s baton, the idea of cultural engagement got a new meaning. That the New York Philharmonic’s tour happened within a week of ­Steven Spielberg’s decision to step aside as an artistic adviser to the opening ceremony at the Beijing Olympics makes the contrast all the more glaring.

 

When it comes to informal diplomacy, there is one rule for Pyongyang, another for Beijing. When it comes to actual diplomacy, another set of rules prevails. Almost nobody trades with North Korea; almost everybody trades with China. No country is about to open a commercial attache’s office in Pyongyang; despite Darfur and Tiananmen Square, no one has stopped doing business with China.

 

The case for the Philharmonic’s tour to the hermit kingdom is sound. This is about music. There are few works more uplifting than George Gershwin’s An American In Paris. It embodies the sunny-side-up optimism of the American abroad, exploring the world with innocent charm. The Bush administration likes this cultural diplomacy—by some reckoning, the tour is as important as the American table tennis players’ tour of Mao-era China.

 

But China today is different. And because the world cannot do without $10 T-shirts and $39 DVD players, the battle to reform China must be fought by other means. This means Spielberg, and if activists are lucky, some athletes who might boycott the Games, jettisoning their dreams, will make political points. But it is disingenuous to target the Games now: The time to do so was in July 2001, when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) voted for Beijing. In 1993, even when Tiananmen Square was red with the blood of students killed by the Chinese military four years earlier, China came close to the prize: Sydney barely scraped through with a 45-43 win over Beijing. In 2001, there was hardly any debate.

 

True, when IOC voted for Beijing, the Darfur crisis was not as acute then, and we lived in the innocent, pre-9/11 world. But you didn’t need Darfur or Burma to punish China, for there is no shortage of abuses there: The way tens of thousands of prisoners are treated in China’s lao gai (labour camp) is far worse than the treatment meted out to inmates at Guantanamo Bay. And yet, while the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 was sufficient for many Western countries to boycott the ­Moscow Olympics in 1980 (resulting in the tit-for-tat Soviet bloc boycott of the Los Angeles Games in 1984), all concerns were set aside while voting for Beijing.

 

Curiously, that may not be a bad thing. This is not out of any naive, sentimental feeling that sports builds bridges, but because it exposes the hypocrisy of international politics—of empty gestures. Sometimes sports builds bridges, sometimes it destroys them, bringing out the worst of jingoism. Think of India-Pakistan matches which, as the American writer Mike Marqusee describes it, are war minus the shooting. Or, an actual war: in 1969, a football match between ­Honduras and El Salvador was the last straw that broke the barrier, plunging the two nations into a war, which the late Polish writer Ryszard Kapuscinski immortalized in his book, The Soccer War.

 

There’s enough tension in sports; adding politics makes it worse. And seeking political change through sports (or culture) is guilt-free activism. It is peculiarly odd to think that by preventing Spielberg from going to Beijing, China’s—or Sudan’s—human rights situation will improve. Sports and arts boycotts are feel-good boycotts. They require no sacrifice on the part of politicians; the burden is for the performer or the athlete, and the fans.

 

The world has been through this before: India was among the first to impose economic sanctions on apartheid-era

Author : Salil Tripathi is a writer based in London
Tags- Find more articles on - cultural diplomacy | cultural engagement | Dafur crisis | freedom of expression | North Korea | soft power | Tiananmen Square

Post your Comments on this Article

Name  
Email    
Comment  
Comments will be moderated

More Related Articles
Culture
More Articles


 
An Initiative of
LIBERTY INSTITUTE, INDIA
All rights reserved.