Protest against the Olympics is justified
I wanted to respond to Kia Makarechi’s column (“Protests won’t bring peace,” April 10). I was disappointed that the only mention of the protests at the Olympic torch relay was critical of the protesters, rather than supportive. I was there in San Francisco with four other UCLA students from the Darfur Action Committee, so I think I can give a fair view of why we should and do protest. We were not there because we feel “uncomfortable with the continued injustices committed by (China’s) government.” We were there because we are outraged and saddened by the absolutely unacceptable injustices committed by the Chinese government.
The column’s argument has two main flaws.
First of all, Darfur activists are not “demanding that the Chinese people be robbed of their first-ever Olympiad,” and, secondly, the protests are working.
The actual goal of the protests by Darfur groups is to “urge world leaders not to attend Olympic opening ceremonies,” and “they are not calling for any nation, athlete or corporate sponsor to boycott the sporting events of the Olympics” ““ as stated in an April 3 press release by SaveDarfur.org.
No one is trying to deprive China of hosting the Olympics. The protests are aimed at the Chinese government, and the point, as Jerry Fowler, the president of the Save Darfur Coalition, put it, is that “Beijing can hide the Olympic torch, but today’s events show they can’t hide their torturous policy of aiding and abetting genocide.”
By misunderstanding the goals of the protesters, the column misses the achievements of the protests. The fact that this article was written at all shows that protests have brought global attention to the Chinese government’s policies toward Sudan, Tibet and other areas.
The torch should be a “symbol of world unity.” But is it going to represent a world that is united behind a country that brings suffering to millions? Or is it going to represent a world that hears the cry of those millions and rallies together to correct those injustices?
Meredith Pierce
Third-year, political science
Makarechi’s position has no historical basis
The U.S. led the world in debate over Nazi Germany hosting the Olympics but ultimately agreed to participate in 1936. I would like to remind Kia Makarechi (“Protests won’t bring peace,” April 10) that Germany invaded Poland three years later. His statement that “political change, social advancement and economic stimulation can (and should) be by-products of hosting (the Olympics)” clearly has no historical basis. The participation of nations in an event hosted by a country that violates human rights condones, rather than alters, the actions of that country. In fact, one could argue that the pouring of money into Germany by the Olympics promoted its ability to quickly invade and massacre neighboring countries.
China will not change when the more “enlightened” Western countries descend on it for the Olympics, bringing democracy and human rights. This thinking is naive, blind and arrogant.
Nicole Pyburn
Graduate student, pathology