对我博客图片的说明

这是我自娱自乐写的东西，内容是：
去年今日此门中，
人面桃花相映红，
人面不知何处去，
桃花依旧笑春风。

我译国际工人委员会（CWI)的俄罗斯和格鲁吉亚

俄罗斯和格鲁吉亚
5天战争的影响
战争对高加索地区和其他地方意味着什么？

Rob Jones， 工人国际委员会CWI ，莫斯科 2008年8月23日

由于俄罗斯和高加索格鲁吉亚共和国在很小的分离地区南奥塞梯上的冲突突然升级为一场恶梦般的军事冲突，世界各地媒体的关注焦点转离了中国的奥运会。

南奥塞梯的首府茨欣瓦利在数周的日趋紧张后，格鲁吉亚总统米哈伊尔萨卡什维利出兵夺取了该地区。在8月6日和8月7日的晚上，格鲁吉亚军队用自动武器和火炮袭击了茨欣瓦利和其他五个市镇。对于在最初阶段战斗中死亡的人数，有着不同的说法。

一名俄罗斯记者说，南奥塞梯的首府已严重受损。来自茨欣瓦利的Zaid Tsarnayev告诉路透社说“城市被摧毁，有许多人员伤亡，许多人受伤。” “昨天我在医院，我看到了许多平民受伤。医院后来被格鲁吉亚喷气式飞机摧毁，我不知道是否受伤者仍然在那里” 。南奥塞梯的总统，爱德华科科伊季和俄罗斯外长拉夫罗夫都声称有超过1500人，主要是平民在袭击期间被炸死，至少有15个驻茨欣瓦利的俄罗斯的“维持和平部队”士兵被打死。

随着格鲁吉亚部队夺取城镇，俄罗斯军队以表面上保卫该地区的人民的名义开着一群重型坦克越过俄罗斯进入南奥塞梯的山区。在茨欣瓦利，战斗再次爆发，几天来，无论是俄罗斯还是格鲁吉亚方面的军事发言人都声称他们自己控制了该城镇。双方都使用了自己的空军。
扩大着的破坏

俄罗斯军队随后离开南奥塞梯，占领了哥里市并且袭击了格鲁吉亚其余整个军事和经济目标。哥里市和茨欣瓦利一样遭受了重创。许多人在袭击中丧生或受伤。格鲁吉亚还声称，俄罗斯飞机轰炸了格鲁吉亚在黑海港口的船舶而且还袭击了穿越该国的石油和天然气管道。

萨卡什维利宣称格鲁吉亚进入战争状态，宣布征召预备役军人，并立即撤出了该国驻伊拉克的特遣队。在伊拉克，格鲁吉亚有2000名军人，是继美国和英国后的第三大队伍。双方承受了巨大的要求缓和冲突的外交压力。美国出来并公开地和俄罗斯敌对起来，事实上在整个冲突中，赖斯握着萨卡什维利的手。欧盟试图更加的中立，默克尔和萨尔科齐穿梭于两国首都之间试图找到一种妥协。与高加索地区相邻的伊朗充当了争端斡旋者的角色，而中国呼吁停火，“ 这是奥运会期间传统的回应” ！
现在，虽然许多俄罗斯军队继续留在格鲁吉亚，战争似乎结束了。但是，世界已经发生急剧变化。
地区紧张局势升级

2006年末格鲁吉亚周边地区长期的紧张局势的升级，与之相应的是国际上美国和俄罗斯关系越来越紧张。由于多项因素，俄罗斯政府所谓的“冻结的冲突”升温起来。今年7月第比利斯附近的军事演习中投入了超过一千名美国海军陆战队，格鲁吉亚继续试图加入北约，（虽然今年年初其最后的尝试被拒绝）以及格鲁吉亚公开支持美国导弹防御系统部署在东欧，这些因素都发挥了作用使得冲突越来越深。

不凑巧的是可能因为格鲁吉亚拘捕四名俄罗斯间谍，2006年年底俄罗斯当局发起了针对居住在俄罗斯的格鲁吉亚人的恶劣的种族主义运动。政府实施了对格鲁吉亚的货物主要是葡萄酒和白兰地的经济抵制。结果是很多咖啡厅和酒吧都“干涸了” 。同时，生活在莫斯科的格鲁吉亚人受到的骚扰戏剧性地增加-不断进行护照和工作许可证的检查。俄罗斯电视显示，数百名格鲁吉亚人，在假定'非法'的情况下被载入“紧急情况部“的飞机驱逐出境。数百人通过列车被驱逐出境。

北约的问题使得双方的观点两级化。萨卡什维利把格鲁吉亚加入北约作为他的政府的一个基本政策。因此，令他感到强烈失望的是今年早些时候格鲁吉亚加入北约的申请在布加勒斯特会议上被拒绝了（同乌克兰一起）。一些分析家曾暗示他因此想通过攻击南奥塞梯以便让北约采取行动站在格鲁吉亚一边。这是一个不太可能的说法。萨卡什维利的政府一直面临着越来越多的经济困难。对于大多数的人来说，玫瑰革命的承诺和希望，即格鲁吉亚将加入西方世界将带来较高的生活水准和自由，已落空。

越来越多的反对
随着对其统治反对的增多，示威者开始走上街，2007年11月初，萨卡什维利使用警察和军队打击第比利斯的示威者并宣布国家进入紧急状态。那时，为了能越过这一日益严重的反对声浪，今年1月萨卡什维利宣布提前进行总统大选和决定何时举行议会选举的公民投票。同时，他再次当选，反对党指责萨卡什维利“巧妙操纵”一月的选举。这些事件至少导致一些欧洲列强开始试图和萨卡什维利拉开距离。因此，这更可能是萨卡什维利垂死挣扎，而不是经过深思熟虑的战略计划。

对俄罗斯政府而言，一个关键的转折点是在今年二月对科索沃独立的承认。这是俄罗斯在巴尔干地区的利益的一个打击，因为它看到了一个公开亲美的科索沃政府，该政府是不符合俄罗斯的历史上的盟友塞尔维亚的意愿的。俄罗斯的统治精英恨得咬牙切齿。当时仍是俄罗斯总统的普京指出， “科索沃的做法是一个可怕的先例，实际上这将冲击整个国际关系体系，该冲击的发展不至几十年，而且要几个世纪。他们没有想过他们所做事情的结果。事已做完的时候，这是一个双节棍，其第二节会折回打在他们自己的脸上“ 。

俄罗斯派往北约的特使，民族主义的政客，好久以来一直是克里姆林宫的重要人物的德米特里罗戈津表示的更是明确。他表示这一决定意味着： “我们也不得不从如下观点来办事，即为了得到尊重，我们必须使用蛮力，换句话说用武力” 。此评论紧跟着他先前的关于北约东扩的评论，罗戈津指出： “一旦格鲁吉亚得到华盛顿允许其加入北约的承诺，第二天这两个地区从格鲁吉亚分离出来的进程将马上开始” 。

随着承认科索沃的独立，俄罗斯取消了它曾经对阿布哈兹和南奥塞梯施加的经济限制以便在该共和国加强对它的支持。今年2月至8月的六个月里双方的挑衅行为不断升级，包括飞入禁飞区和枪击事件。在萨卡什维利攻击茨欣瓦利的几个星期之前，俄罗斯派出数十名“铁路”部队进入南奥塞梯，表面上是为了恢复与莫斯科铁路连接。这被第比利斯视为对其领土主权实施的敌对行为，而事实上它有助于解释为什么俄罗斯军队可以这么快地把坦克和军队推进茨欣瓦利。
虚伪——战争的一个症象

正如俄罗斯领导人指出的，美国指责俄罗斯进入格鲁吉亚是令人难以置信的虚伪。毕竟，伊拉克战争是非法的而且残酷。但8月的第二个星期公开战争的爆发见证了双方更令人难以置信的虚伪和宣传。

突然，美国反对起自决权，虽然它支持科索沃独立。俄罗斯支持自决权，虽然它已发动两次残酷的战争以阻止车臣独立。西部亲格鲁吉亚的媒体新闻几乎完全站在支持萨卡什维利的立场上。几乎完全忽略格鲁吉亚部队对茨欣瓦利的首先发动的攻击。城市遭到重炮轰击导致许多平民死亡。后果之一是有12名俄罗斯“维和”士兵也被打死。当俄罗斯派出坦克进入格鲁吉亚后，新闻界主导的消息是俄罗斯侵占该地区。最初的五天战争已经结束之后，才出现文章，例如在位于英国的报纸卫报上，片面地暗示美国应对冲突负责。

俄罗斯媒体站在克里姆林宫一边。专栏只报道茨欣瓦利人民的苦难，而一字不提俄罗斯军队进入格鲁吉亚，或对哥里市狂暴袭击。在没有独立的检查的情况下，夸大其词和谣言漫天飞。他们报道着科科伊季和俄罗斯外长拉夫罗夫声称的在格鲁吉亚的最初攻击中有1600到2000名的平民被炸死的消息。不过，人权观察，在医院调查后，说不超过100名被杀害。

不过这足以使俄罗斯派进部队了。在五天里面，在整个格鲁吉亚，随处可见俄罗斯坦克纵队。同时，亲俄罗斯的目击者盲目地宣称他们看到了成队的北约部队通过格鲁吉亚。双方的试图“客观地”报道的记者成了受害人。俄罗斯国际广播“今日俄罗斯”的一名记者试图从第比利斯发送有关俄罗斯袭击的报告而被迫辞职。企图通过俄罗斯前往南奥塞梯的来自西方的记者受到解雇的威胁。双方抛出了不同的术语，如“法西斯主义者”萨卡什维利，对奥塞梯人的“种族灭绝”， “侵略者”或“斯大林主义的”克里姆林宫来发泄情绪和隐藏真正问题以及分散人们对发生着的人类的严重灾难的注意力。
因此，社会主义者会说些什么呢？

社会主义者立足于什么是有利于或不利于劳动阶层和穷人上。我们反对用经验主义的方法来分析情况的做法——也就是'谁开了第一枪？ ' 我们也不把我们的立场放在伪装的国家利益上。因此，我们只是看到了一些疑问： “谁是亲美帝国主义的或反美帝国主义的？ ” ，而其他人问： “谁是亲俄或反俄的？ ” 但这些问题没有看到如下这一点：这冲突的真正原因是华盛顿和莫斯科的统治阶级间竞争着的帝国主义利益。这就是为什么双方的工人运动必须保持其独立性的原因。

许多左派人士 ，特别是源自斯大林主义的传统的左派，选择了给予俄罗斯的资本主义关键性的支持的做法，他们这样做的基础性认识是在当今世界上俄罗斯及其盟国是对美帝国主义的肆无忌惮最好的防御。这是基于如下悲观的评估：国际工人阶级是没有能力团结起来斗争以推翻资本主义的。他们还相信他们正在支持一个“较小的邪恶” 。

带有改良主义倾向的左派人士和其他人谈及到了在有争议的地区需要一个“中立”部队以监督维持和平，呼吁使用联合国（UN）或欧安组织（OSCE）的部队。然而，正如前南斯拉夫或卢旺达的经历所显示的，这些特遣队也捍卫他们自己的政府的政策并且没有能力维持和平。事实上，巴尔干地区冲突中最严重的大屠杀在斯雷布雷尼察发生时，联合国维和部队无动于衷。

在俄罗斯，革命的马克思主义者所面对的形势是特别困难的。社会上有令人难以置信的要求支持俄罗斯的行动的压力。摆在我们面前的有各种各样的问题——“我们应该如何捍卫俄罗斯护照持有人的权利？ ” “为什么俄罗斯不应该勇敢地抵抗美帝国主义及其傀儡格鲁吉亚萨卡什维利？ ” “当然，如果南奥塞梯的人民要与北奥塞梯统一起来，他们应该有这个权利吗？ “ ”俄罗斯军队进入格鲁吉亚以确保格鲁吉亚军队被解除武装而使他们不可以再攻击我们？ “ ”社会主义是抽象的，现在必须做些什么， “这些问题都需要回答的，但我们也明白，有时社会主义者必须采取长远的看法和采取站在工人阶级的利益上的坚定立场。
应保护谁？
苏联的崩溃和资本主义之恢复的整个悲剧是没有独立的工人阶级的组织能够提供一个方案以结束斯大林主义和资本主义的恐怖。后果之一是，工人阶级分崩离析，社会退化和民族分裂已成为一种规范，这是毫不奇怪的，这是资本主义的本质。即使是“现代的，文明的”的国家，如比利时，英国和西班牙都没有成功地解决民族问题。但在前苏联，新生的资本主义精英自觉无恐地在用种族冲突来达到其目的。

社会主义者需要出来说话，不仅是为了受到攻击的民族，而且是在保卫所有民族的广大劳工阶层反对他们的压迫者的权利。这意味着，尽管萨卡什维利政府的侵略政策，我们也不应该支持南奥塞梯科科伊季（kokoiki）政府，该政府建立在克格勃和军代表以及通过走私和黑市交易筹措财政资金的基础上的政府，该政府得到俄罗斯老板的支持。正如萨卡什维利是一个亲美的走卒，科科伊季政府是一个黑手党的政府，捍卫黑手党的利益与支持俄罗斯的帝国主义。因此，我们呼吁奥塞梯，俄罗斯和格鲁吉亚工人阶级的团结以维护他们的共同利益。
享有自决权意味什么？
正如在南奥塞梯（和科索沃）发生的事件中看到的，自决权的问题被双方虚伪地利用着。所谓的领导人，并不意味着工人阶级和穷人的自决权，只是那些拥有军队和强大的朋友的人的自决权。作为真正的社会主义者，我们通过组织工人阶级和国际性的团结来捍卫我们的自决权和打击一切形式的民族歧视和压迫。正如科索沃和南奥塞梯所证明的，在资本主义下，一个民族的真正独立是没有可能性的。寻求这一个或另一个帝国主义力量的支持不是解决办法。发展一个能挑战和推翻资本主义的独立的工人阶级的力量-在国内和国际上-是保证享有自决权唯一的出路。在另一方面，社会主义者始终不主张工人阶级的分离，我们甚至要做工作以便各民族的劳动阶层在行动上能相互团结起来和联合起来。

在南奥塞梯，我们要问，哪个南奥塞梯有自决的权利？南奥塞梯应在俄罗斯联邦的框架下加入北奥塞梯，或作为一个独立的实体呢？南奥塞梯的一部分应脱离另一部分（沿民族线），既把格鲁吉亚的一部分留在格鲁吉亚和奥塞梯的一部分留在俄罗斯吗？或居住在南奥塞梯的人民应该被迫返回到“现状” ？对于这些变化的每一个，我们可以清楚表明，除非推翻资本主义，该地区基本的经济问题和社会问题将不会得到解决，只要资本主义仍然存在着，该地区仍然会因为世界帝国主义势力为了控制石油和天然气管道而冲突不断，压迫性的民族主义政府为了富人和有权有势的人而将沿民族界限把人们分离开来。
我们支持一个基于社会上的工人和穷人有权决定他们希望生活在什么地方的真正的民族自决权。这只有当劳动阶层和穷人建立起有能力捍卫自己的利益的自己的组织时方能实现。同时，一个自决权不应该以牺牲另一个自决权为代价。因此，我们支持在一个联邦或邦联结构下的任何团体的自治或独立的权利，如果他们愿意的话。工人阶级为真正的而不是斯大林主义意义上的社会主义斗争的最高的团结是我们的目标，我们对民族情绪是敏感的。因此，举例来说，如果南奥塞梯决定独立，其中的格鲁吉亚的人口也应该有权自主或独立，如果他们希望这样做的话。

谁可以维护工人的权益呢？

许多人认为现在至少俄罗斯军队将捍卫南奥塞梯的权利。但在过去20年里，军队（无论是以其常规的形式或非正规的形式）表明，它对该地区的介入是为了这部分或那部分俄罗斯统治精英的利益而以各民族的普通百姓的牺牲为代价的。在阿布哈兹的背景下，它参与了对格鲁吉亚人的大屠杀，仅仅因为他们住在错误的地方。他们并不试图反对科科伊季的如下声明：居住在南奥塞梯的格鲁吉亚人不应被允许返回。决不能说俄罗斯军队通过两次残酷的战争保护了车臣人的权利，它也没有能够确保印古什或北奥塞梯的和平。事实上，军队首领的笨拙的做法恶化了别斯兰市的灾难。

在目前的冲突中，俄罗斯军队占领哥里市和攻击格鲁吉亚港口的船只已显示出它是维护俄罗斯的寡头资本家的石油和天然气的利益的。
短期内，有可能为了创造一个稳定的形象，将看到军队在保护当地人口（至少那些没有被阻止返回的人），但它不久将回到其通常的捍卫俄罗斯的统治阶级利益的角色上来。

在其他此类冲突中，我们已提出要建立工人的防卫力量。但在这些条件下，他们不应该仅仅是成立保卫某一特定地区的居民的“ narodnii opolchentsi ” （人民的捍卫者）。这样他们只会成为以民族为基础的民兵。我们必须主张工人的防卫力量应是多民族的，在工人的民主控制下建立这样的力量以保护工人和穷人免受攻击，不论其民族是什么。
在资本主义下，问题能得到解决吗？
只说在高加索地区的民族和种族冲突完全是资本主义的产物就显得太粗糙了。很清楚斯大林主义的遗产及其处理这些问题的官僚主义的方法在该地区留下了痕迹。但恢复资本主义是导致该地区在以控制石油和天然气路线为目的的派系斗争以及帝国主义列强的无休止的冲突的支配下变得极端贫穷。如果不论其民族是什么，能提供所有人适当的住房和就业机会，像样的卫生服务和教育以及退休金，那么争取自决的斗争必须和与资本主义的斗争联系起来。如果工人能被充分地组织起来并在该地区的任何一个共和国取得政治权力，那么，民族的地图将引人注目地重画，因为生活水平的改善和真正的自决的可能性将意味着各民族将能够合作而不是相互冲突。
这是现实吗？

有人会说： “没错，那很好，但现在我们需要做一些事情！”问题是只要该地区被像萨卡什维利，科科伊季或kadyrev这样的人以及他们的华盛顿和莫斯科帝国主义支持者的支配，就没有实际的解决办法。当然，我们欢迎任何短期的缓和问题的做法，但要警告说，一个真正的解决办法是把资本主义赶出该地区。
要达到这个目的，社会主义的纲领必须基于如下几点：
 呼吁俄罗斯，格鲁吉亚和南奥塞梯，当然包括其他国家的所有的工人和左翼活动家一起来要求立即停止军事活动。工人不能依靠他们的政府和外交官的不受控制的行动，或一些外部势力的干预来解决冲突，他们只能依靠他们自己的力量。
 所有的俄罗斯和格鲁吉亚军队撤出南奥塞梯以及反对其他资本主义国家派送的部队。我们呼吁在工人阶级的民主控制下建立跨民族的工人的防卫部队而不是以所谓的维持和平部队来保护工人和穷人（不论其民族如何）免受攻击。
 为南奥塞梯和其他未被承认的共和国得到没有军事干预的自决权。
 号召格鲁吉亚，俄罗斯和南奥塞梯的劳工大众采取联合行动以推翻对普通百姓发动战争的这些国家的政府和把帝国主义赶出该地区。
 在工人民主的控制和管理下国有化该地区的石油，天然气和其他自然资源以及运送用的管道，把相关收入用来解决该地区的贫困问题。
 在民主选举产生的委员会的控制之下，制定一个紧急的建设计划和创造就业机会为该地区的所有民族的所有难民提供住房和收入。
 建立将捍卫工人的利益、克服贫困和确保和平的政府。
 一个高加索地区的民主的社会主义联邦-没有它，不可能有任何长期解决土地和资源上的冲突的方案。

该地区面临着什么样的未来呢？

无论目前的军事调遣的最后的结果是什么，没有什么问题能得到解决。格鲁吉亚继续被迫使阿布哈兹和南奥塞梯违背它们的意愿回到格鲁吉亚的集团统治下。萨卡什维利以他的的方式攻击南奥塞梯是犯了一个严重的错误。现在许多西方领导人都意识到他是一个不可靠的盟友。美国无法使得北约同意完全支持他，如果奥巴马赢得美国总统大选，美国外交政策的策略可能会改变。萨卡什维利会发现自己的国内支持率的下降和被世界大国控制。格鲁吉亚的一些反对派领导人已发出呼吁进行新的选举以取代萨卡什维利，但如果萨卡什维利只是被另一个新自由主义政治家取代的话，这些不会有任何的效果。有迫切需要在格鲁吉亚建立真正的左翼来替代萨卡什维利。
在俄罗斯， “梅德韦杰夫与普京的”双簧赢得了得不偿失的胜利。这不会是他发动第二次车臣战争后普京总统成功的一个重复。一方面由于这些事件，整个高加索地区将更加不稳定，需要更大的资源来“控制”该地区。而且经济再增长十年的条件已不复存在。美国，欧盟和日本正经历经济减速或经济衰退。石油价格的进一步严重下跌将重重地打击俄罗斯经济。甚至在这些事件之前，外国对俄罗斯的投资已急剧下降。
财政部部长库德林说，由于战争，160亿美元的外国投资已逃离该国。虽然一段时期内，政权可能会得到暂时的加强，这不大可能成为永久性的。如果经济条件恶化，几年后，人们可能回顾并指出南奥塞梯的战争是一个转折点。唯一的问题是是否有能得到群众支持的真正的左翼替代能发展起来。
在作为一个整体的高加索地区，形势是可怕的。帝国主义列强为了控制该地区而进行的斗争将会更痛苦。现在建设天然气管道是个问题，因为投资者对不稳定的不满。俄罗斯使得萨卡什维利得到惩罚的明显的成功可能会鼓励阿泽（Azeri）政权尝试夺取纳戈尔诺-卡拉巴赫，使之回到其控制下。整个高加索地区现有的状况将爆发一场巴尔干类型的战争，不仅涉及区域势力，而且包括主要的帝国主义势力。
国际反响

在国际上，老帝国主义列强发现自己处在一个更为困难的境地。二十年来帝国主义者一直在试图逐步发展与俄罗斯的关系，同时保持自己的优势。现在它认为它创造了一个难以控制的怪兽。北约在如何作出反应上出现了分歧。一方面，波兰，乌克兰和波罗的海国家忙着保卫格鲁吉亚。现在美国反导弹防御系统将在波兰和乌克兰推进部署。
作为回应，白俄罗斯和俄罗斯已经宣布，它们将建立自己的反制系统。八国集团内已呼吁再次返回到七国集团。美国发现在如何对付俄罗斯上，它遭到了一些欧洲资本家的反对。在联合国，美国将在坚持自己的立场上更为困难，俄罗斯将更为有意愿去使用其否决权。由于国际组织如联合国和欧安组织都不情愿把他们的维和部队派往高加索地区，拒不允许俄罗斯去控制。帝国主义列强将被拖入高加索火药库。

但国际条件和1990年代初巴尔干战争时不一样。当时苏联刚刚垮台，资本主义似乎已经赢得了意识形态的斗争，世界经济稳步增长以及工人运动失去方向感并且缺乏领导。现在，人们已开始越来越多地质疑资本主义的问题，世界经济正处于一个可怕的状态，国际上工人运动已开始施展其力量。必须从高加索地区的这场恶梦般的情况中汲取教训和为新的一代在高水平上建立社会主义合作关系开辟道路。


23 August 2008
Russia and Georgia
Implications of a five day war
What does the war mean for the Caucusus and beyond?
Rob Jones, CWI, Moscow
The world’s press had their attention diverted from the glitter of China’s Olympic Games as the conflict between Russia and the Caucasian republic of Georgia over the small breakaway region of South Ossetia suddenly escalated into a nightmarish military conflict.
After weeks of growing tension in South Ossetia’s capital, Tskhinvali, Georgia’s President Mikhail Saakashvili sent troops to seize the region. Over the night of 6th and 7th August Georgian troops attacked Tskhinvali and five other towns with automatic weapons and artillery. Claims vary on the number killed in the initial stages of the fighting.
A Russian journalist said the South Ossetian capital had been badly damaged. "The town is destroyed. There are many casualties, many wounded," Zaid Tsarnayev told Reuters from Tskhinvali. "I was in the hospital yesterday where I saw many civilian wounded. The hospital was later destroyed by a Georgian jet. I don't know whether the wounded were still there". Both South Ossetia’s president, Eduard Kokoiti, and Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, have claimed that over 1500 people, mainly peaceful residents were killed during the attacks. At least 15 Russian “peacekeeping troops” based in Tskhinvali were killed.
With the Georgian troops having initially seized the town, Russian troops, headed by a huge column of heavy tanks, crossed the mountain passes from Russia into South Ossetia, ostensibly to defend the people of the area. Fighting again broke out in Tskhinvali and for days, both Russian and Georgian military spokesmen claimed control of the city. Both sides used their airforce.
Unfolding destruction
Russian troops then moved out of South Ossetia, occupying the city of Gori and attacking military and economic targets throughout the rest of Georgia. Gori ended up in the same state of destruction as Tskhinvali. Many were killed or wounded in these attacks. The Georgians also claim that Russian aircraft bombed ships in Georgia’s Black Sea Ports and that the oil and gas pipelines crossing the country were also attacked.
Saakashvili declared that Georgia was in a state of war, announced the call up of reservists and the immediate withdrawal of the country’s contingent from Iraq. Georgia has 2,000 troops there, the third biggest contingent after the US and Britain,. Huge diplomatic pressure was put on both sides to tone down the conflict. The US came out openly hostile to Russia, with Condoleezza Rice in effect holding Saakashvili’s hand throughout the conflict. The EU tried to be more bi-partisan, with Merkel and Sarkozy shuttling between the two capitals trying to find a compromise. Iran, which borders on the Caucasian region, offered to arbitrate in the dispute, whilst China called for a ceasefire “which is the traditional response during the Olympic Games”!
Now, although many Russian troops remain in Georgia, the fighting war appears to be over. But the world has dramatically changed.
Regional tensions escalated
Long-running tensions in the region around Georgia escalated considerably after the end of 2006 in parallel with the increase in tensions between the US and Russia internationally. What the Russian government called the “frozen conflict” heated up as a result of a number of factors. Military exercises near Tbilisi in July of this year, involving over a thousand US marines, Georgia’s continued attempts to join NATO, (although the last attempt was pushed back at the beginning of this year) and Georgia’s open support for the US missile defence system based in Eastern Europe have all played a role in bringing the conflict closer.
Not coincidentally a nasty racist campaign had been launched by the Russian authorities against Georgians living in Russia towards the end of 2006, supposedly after the Georgians arrested four Russian spies. The government imposed an economic boycott of Georgian goods, mainly wine and brandy. As a result many cafes and bars “ran dry”. At the same time harassment of Georgians living in Moscow was stepped up dramatically – passports and work permits constantly checked. Russian TV showed hundreds of Georgians, who were supposedly ‘illegal’, being loaded onto ‘Ministry of Emergencies’ aircraft for deportation. Many hundreds more were sent by train.
The question of NATO has acted to polarise opinions on both sides. Saakashvili had made the entry of Georgia into NATO a key policy of his administration. He was therefore bitterly disappointed that the application was pushed back (together with the Ukraine’s) at the Bucharest Conference earlier this year. Some analysts have suggested that he therefore decided to attack South Ossetia in order to attempt to push NATO into action on Georgia’s side. This is an unlikely explanation. Saakashvili’s government has been meeting increasing economic difficulties. For the majority of the population, the promises and hopes of the Rose Revolution that somehow Georgia would join the West with its high living standards and freedoms, have been dashed.
Growing opposition
As opposition to his rule grew, protesters began to come out on the streets Saakashvili, in early November 2007, used police and troops to attack demonstrators in Tbilisi and declared a state of emergency. Then, in an attempt to cut across this growing opposition, Saakashvili announced an early presidential election and a referendum on when to hold parliamentary elections in January this year. While he was re-elected the opposition accused Saakashvili of “subtly rigging” January’s election. These events led at least some European powers to begin to try and distance themselves from Saakashvili. It is therefore more likely that Saakashvili, rather than following a well thought out strategic plan, was actually desperately trying to find a way out of the corner into which he had been forced.
A key turning point for the Russian government was the recognition of Kosovo independence in February of this year. This was a blow to Russian interests in the Balkans as it saw an openly pro-US Kosovan government granted recognition against the wishes of Russia’s historical ally Serbia. Russia’s ruling elite reacted with venom spitting through clenched teeth. The then still Russian president, Putin, stated that, “The precedent of Kosovo is a terrible precedent, which will de facto blow apart the whole system of international relations, developed not over decades, but over centuries. They have not thought through the results of what they are doing. At the end of the day it is a two-ended stick and the second end will come back and hit them in the face".
Russia’s envoy to NATO, nationalist politician and long time Kremlin insider Dmitri Rogozin was even more explicit. This decision, he stated means that: "We too would then have to proceed from the view that in order to be respected we must use brute force, in other words armed force". This comment follows on from his earlier comments concerning NATO expansion, in which Rogozin stated: “As soon as Georgia gets the promise to join NATO from Washington, on the next day the real process to separate these two territories from Georgia will begin.”
Following the recognition of Kosova, Russia lifted the economic restrictions it still had in place against Abkhazia and South Ossetia and activated its attempts to strengthen its support in the republics. The sixth months from February to August this year saw a steady increase in incidents provoked by both sides including flights into the no fly zone and shooting incidents. In the weeks before Saakashvili’s attack on Tskhinvali, Russia sent scores of “railway troops” into South Ossetia, ostensibly to restore the rail link with Moscow. This was interpreted by Tbilisi as a hostile act on sovereign territory, and indeed it helps to explain how the Russian army could get tanks and troops into Tskhinvali so quickly.
Hypocrisy – the first sign of war
As the Russian leadership point out, the US is unbelievably hypocritical when it attacks Russia for going in to Georgia. After all the war in Iraq is illegal and just as brutal. But the outbreak of open warfare in the second week of August saw even more incredible hypocrisy and propaganda on both sides.
Suddenly the US is against self-determination, although it supports Kosovo independence. Russia supports self-determination although it has waged two brutal wars to prevent Chechen independence. The western pro-Georgian press put almost purely the pro-Saakashvili position. Almost no attention was paid to the initial attack by Georgian troops on Tskhinvali. The town was subjected to heavy artillery bombardment leaving many of the civilian population dead. As a result 12 Russian “peacekeeping” troops were also killed. After the Russians sent tanks into Georgia, the press was dominated by the Russian occupation. Only after the initial five days war was over did articles start appearing, for example in the Guardian, a British-based newspaper, suggesting, in a one-sided way, that the US was responsible for the conflict.
The Russian press towed the Kremlin line to a man. Columns reported on the suffering of the population in Tskhinvali but not a word was said about Russian troops moving into Georgia, or the vicious attacks on Gori. Exaggerations and rumours were reported with no independent checking. The claims of Kokoiti and Russian foreign minister Lavrov that between 1,600 and 2,000 civilians were killed in Georgia’s initial attack are taken as read. However Human Rights Watch, after surveying hospitals, talks of less than a hundred being killed.
But this was enough for Russia to send the troops in. During the five days, Russian tank columns were spotted throughout Georgia. At the same time pro-Russian witnesses swore blindly they had seen columns of NATO troops moving through Georgia. Reporters on both sides who tried to be “objective” were victimised. A reporter for Russia’s world service, “Russia today”, tried to send reports from Tbilisi reporting on Russian attacks but was forced to resign. Reporters from western papers who attempted to go to South Ossetia through Russia were threatened with the sack. Varying terminology on both sides such as the “fascist” Saakashvili, the “genocide” of the Ossetian people, “aggressors” or the “Stalinist” Kremlin are thrown around to play on emotions and hide the real issues and distract from the grave human catastrophe taking place.
So what would socialists say?
Socialists base themselves on what is beneficial or detrimental to the working class and poor people. We reject attempts to analyse the situation in an empirical way – that is, ‘Who fired the first shot?’ Nor do we base our standpoint on questions that can be used to disguise national interests. Thus we see some asking simply “Who is pro- or anti-US imperialism?”, while others ask “Who is pro- or anti-Russian?” But these questions miss the point that the real reason for this clash is the competing imperialist interests of the ruling classes in both Washington and Moscow. This is why the workers’ movement must maintain its independence from both.
Many lefts, especially from a Stalinist tradition, have chosen to give critical support to Russian capitalism, on the basis that Russia and its allies are the best defence there is in the world today against unbridled US imperialism. This is based on the pessimistic assessment that the international working class is incapable of uniting and struggling to overthrow capitalism. They still imagine they are backing a “lesser evil”.
Lefts with a reformist leaning and others speak of the need for a “neutral” force to oversee peace-keeping in the disputed regions. Calls are made for UN or OSCE troops to be used. However, as the experience of the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda show, these contingents also defend the policies of their own governments and are not capable of maintaining peace. Indeed the worst massacre of the conflicts in the Balkans, at Srebrenica took place while UN peacekeepers looked the other way.
In particular, the position facing revolutionary Marxists in Russia is hard. There is incredible pressure in society to support the Russian actions. All sorts of questions are thrown at us - “How else are we supposed to defend the rights of the Russian passport holders?” “Why shouldn’t Russia stand up to US imperialism and its Georgian puppet Saakashvili?” “Surely if the people of South Ossetia want to unite with North Ossetia, they should have the right?” “Russian troops are in Georgia just to ensure that the Georgian army is disarmed and can no longer attack us?” “Socialism is abstract, something has to be done now.” These questions have to be answered, but we also understand that sometimes socialists must adopt the longer view and take a firm position in the interests of the working class.
Who should be defended?
The whole tragedy of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the restoration of capitalism is that there was no independent working class organisation capable of offering a programme to end the horrors of Stalinism and capitalism. As a consequence, the working class has become divided; social degradation and ethnic division have become the norm. This is no surprise. This is in the nature of capitalism. Even “modern, civilised” states such as Belgium, Britain and Spain have not succeeded in solving the national question. But in the former Soviet Union the newly developed capitalist elites have not baulked at consciously using ethnic conflict to further their aims.
Socialists need to speak out, not only in favour of the ethnic group under attack, but also in defence of the rights of the working class of all ethnic groups against their oppressors. This means, notwithstanding the aggressive policies of the Saakashvili government, we should give no support to the Kokoiki government in South Ossetia, based on KGB and army representatives and financing itself through smuggling and the black market, with the support of its Russian paymasters. Just as Saakashvili is a pro-American stooge, the Kokoiti government is a mafia government, defending mafia interests with the backing of Russian imperialism. We therefore call for the unity of the Ossetian, Russian and Georgian working class in defence of their common interests.
What does the right of self-determination mean?
As seen in the events around South Ossetia (and Kosova), the question of self-determination is used hypocritically by both sides. So-called leaders do not mean self-determination for the working class and poor, just for those who have armies and powerful friends. As genuine socialists, we defend the right of self-determination and fight against all forms of national discrimination and oppression through organising working class and international solidarity. As Kosovo and South Ossetia demonstrate, under capitalism there is no possibility of a nation being genuinely independent. Seeking the support of one or another imperialist power is no solution. Developing an independent working class force capable of challenging and overthrowing capitalism – nationally and internationally – is the only way to guarantee the right of self-determination. On the other hand, socialists do not always advocate separation and even when we do work to build the solidarity between and unity in action of the working class of all nationalities.
In South Ossetia, we have to ask which South Ossetia has the right to self-determination? Should South Ossetia join with North Ossetia, within the Russian Federation or as an independent entity? Should part of South Ossetia break away from another part (along ethnic lines) leaving the Georgian part in Georgia and the Ossetian part in Russia? Or should the people who live in South Ossetia be forced to return to the “status quo”? In each of these variations, we can say clearly that the fundamental economic and social problems of the region will not be solved unless capitalism is overthrown, So long as capitalism remains the region will still be subject to the permanent conflict of the world’s imperialist powers for control of the oil and gas pipelines, that repressive and nationalist governments will attempt to divide people along ethnic lines in the interests of the rich and powerful.
We support a genuine right to self-determination based on the rights of the working class and poor in society to decide where they wish to live. This can only be determined when the working class and poor have established their own organisations capable of defending their interests. At the same time self-determination of one group should not be at the expense of another. We therefore support the right to autonomy or independence of any groups within a federal or confederal structure if they so desire. While the maximum unity of the working class in the struggle for socialism, in the genuine and not Stalinist meaning, is our aim we are sensitive to national feelings. Thus if, for example, South Ossetia decided to become independent, the Georgian population within it should have the right to be autonomous or independent, if they so wish.
Who can defend the rights of workers?
Many now argue that at least the Russian army will defend the rights of South Ossetia now. But during the course of the last twenty years, the army (either in its regular form or through irregular units) has shown that it intervenes in the region in the interest of one section or another of the Russian ruling elite at the cost of ordinary people of all nationalities. In the Abkhazia context, it participated in the massacre of Georgians, for no other reason than that they lived in the wrong place. No attempt has been made to counter the recent statements of Kokoiti that Georgians living in Ossetia should not be allowed to return. In no way can the Russian army be said to have defended the rights of Chechens through two brutal wars, nor has it been able to ensure peace in Ingushetia or North Ossetia. Indeed it was the bungling of the army chiefs that worsened the Beslan catastrophe.
During the present conflict, by occupying Gori and attacking ships in Georgian ports, the Russian army has shown it is defending the oil and gas interests of Russia’s capitalist oligarchs.
It may be possible that for a short period, to create an image of stability, the army will be seen to defend the local population (at least those who have not been prevented from returning) but it will soon return to its normal role of defending the interests of the Russian ruling class.
In other such conflicts, we have raised the need to establish workers’ defence forces. But in these conditions they should not be simply “narodnii opolchentsi”, (people’s defenders) formed to defend residents of a particular area. As such they would just become ethnically-based militias. We need to argue that workers’ defence forces should be multi-ethnic, formed to defend workers and the poor from attack, whatever their nationality and under the democratic control of the working class.
Can the question be solved under capitalism?
It is too crude to say that the national and ethnic conflicts in the Caucasus are entirely the result of capitalism. The legacy of Stalinism and its bureaucratic approach to the question of nationalities has clearly left its mark in the region. However it has been the restoration of capitalism that has left the region so desperately poor, under the control of warring factions struggling to control oil and gas routes and subject to the never ending conflict between imperialist powers. If proper homes and jobs, a decent health service and education, pensions are to be provided for all, irrespective of nationality, then the struggle for self-determination has to be linked to the struggle against capitalism. If workers were to be sufficiently organised to take political power in any of the republics in that region, then the nationalities map would be dramatically re-drawn as the improvement in living standards and the possibility of genuine self determination would mean that ethnic groups would be able to cooperate and not be in conflict with each other.
Is this realistic?
Some will say, “Yes, that’s nice but we need to do something now!” The problem is that there is no realistic solution as long as the region is dominated by the likes of Saakashvili, Kokoiti or Kadyrev and by their imperialist backers in Washington and Moscow. Of course we would welcome any short-term easing of the problems but have to warn that, to reach a genuine solution, capitalism has to be driven out of the region.
To achieve this the socialists’ programme is based around:
• a call on all worker and left activists in Russia, Georgia and South Ossetia, and of course in other countries, to demand that military activities are immediately halted. Workers cannot rely on the uncontrolled actions of their governments, diplomats or intervention by some outside forces to solve the conflict, they can only rely on their own forces.
• the withdrawal of all Russian and Georgian troops from South Ossetia and oppose troops supplied by other capitalist states. We call for the formation of trans-ethnic workers’ defence forces to defend workers and poor people from attack, whatever their nationality, and under the democratic control of the working class rather than so-called peace-keeping forces.
• for the right of South Ossetia and the other unrecognised republics to self-determination without military intervention.
• for united action by the working masses of Georgia, Russia and South Ossetia to overthrow those governments who wage war against ordinary people and to drive imperialism out of the region.
• the nationalisation under democratic workers’ control and management of the oil, gas and other natural resources in the region and the pipelines through which they are transported and for the use of the income from these for overcoming poverty in the region.
• an emergency construction programme and job creation to provide homes and incomes for all refugees of all nationalities in the region, under the control of democratically elected committees.
• the establishment of governments which will defend workers’ interests, overcome poverty and ensure peace.
• for a democratic socialist federation of the Caucasus - without this there can be no long-term solution to the conflict over land and resources.
What future now faces the region?
Whatever the final outcome of the current military manoeuvrings, nothing has been resolved. Georgia continues to be ruled by a clique set on forcing Abkhazia and South Ossetia against their will back into Georgia. Saakashvili has made a serious error in attacking South Ossetia in the way he did. Now many western leaders are realising that he is an unreliable ally. The US could not get NATO to agree to fully back him, and, if Obama wins the US Presidential election, US foreign policy tactics may change. Saakashvili will find himself with declining support at home and held at arm’s length by the world powers. Some opposition leaders in Georgia have issued the call for elections to replace Saakashvili, but these will have no purpose if Saakashvili is just replaced by another set of neoliberal politicians. There is an urgent need in Georgia to build a genuine left wing alternative to Saakashvili.
In Russia, the “Medvedev-Putin” tandem has won a Pyrrhic victory. This will not be a repeat of the success of Putin’s presidency after he waged the second Chechen war. On the one hand the whole Caucasus region will be more unstable as a result of these events, demanding even greater resources to “control” the area. But also the conditions no longer exist for a further ten years of economic growth. The US, EU and Japan are now experiencing a slow-down or recession. A further major fall in oil prices would hit the Russian economy hard. There was already a sharp decline in foreign investment into Russia even before these events.
Finance Minister Kudrin says that as a result of the war $16 billion of foreign investment has fled the country. Although for a period there may be a temporary strengthening of the regime, this is unlikely to be permanent. If economic conditions worsen, in a couple of years people could well look back and say that the South Ossetia war was a turning point. The only question is whether a serious left wing alternative capable of building mass support can develop in time.
In the Caucasus as a whole, the situation is dire. The struggle by imperialist powers for control will be even more bitter. The building of the gas pipeline is now under question as the investors are unhappy about the instability. The apparent success of Russia in bringing Saakashvili to book may encourage the Azeri regime to try and wrest Nagorno Karabakh back under its control. The conditions now exist throughout the Caucasus for the explosion of a Balkan type of war, involving not only the regional powers but the major imperialist ones as well.
International repercussions
Internationally, the older imperialist powers find themselves in a much more difficult position. For two decades imperialism has been trying to gradually develop relations with Russia while maintaining their own superiority. Now it finds it has created a monster that is difficult to control. NATO is divided on how to react. On the one hand, Poland, the Ukraine and the Baltic States rushed to Georgia’s defence. The US anti-missile defence system will now go ahead in Poland and the Ukraine.
In reply, Belarus and Russia have announced they will build their own system in opposition. Calls have been made within the G8 to once again return to G7. The US is finding itself in opposition to some of the European capitalists over how to deal with Russia. And in the United Nations the US will find it much harder to carry its position, as Russia will be more willing to use its veto. Whilst the international organisations such as the UN and OSCE are reluctant for their peacekeeping troops to be pulled into the Caucasus, refusal will leave Russia in control. The imperialist powers are being dragged into the Caucasian powder keg.
But the conditions internationally are not the same as those at the start of the nineteen nineties, when the Balkan wars started. Then the Soviet Union had just collapsed, capitalism appeared to have won the ideological war, the world economy was growing steadily and the workers’ movement was disorientated and leaderless. Now, people are beginning to question capitalism more and more, the world economy is in a dire state, the workers movement internationally is beginning to flex its muscles. The lessons of this nightmare situation in the Caucasus must be learned and the way opened for new generations to establish socialist cooperation on the highest scale.

我译CWI奥运会，大生意和独裁(工人国际委员会）

奥运会，大生意和独裁

这次奥林匹克运动会并不是它自称的'国际主义'和'公平竞赛'，初看起来，举办该奥运会伴随着两个矛盾的力量：民族主义式的狂热“爱国主义”和资本主义经济全球化。

2001年7月中国刚刚被授予2008年奥运会时， BBC打出“北京之赢是个大买卖”的标题。奥运会不仅是世界最负盛名的体育盛事，它也是资本主义历史上最成功的营销帝国之一。奥林匹克标志——五环代表五个大洲——是世界上最广泛认同的及严加保护的企业标志。一个规模小的秘密的而且未经选举产生的集团控制着奥运会， 110名成员组成的国际奥林匹克委员会（ IOC ）掌控着庞大的财政资源，各国政府和世界各地的商界领袖给予它巨大的荣誉。前国际奥委会主席萨马兰奇坚决要求人称他为'阁下' 。他的妄自尊大令他赢得了'指环王'的绰号。

预期北京奥运会仅从电视广播方面就赚得25亿美元。直至并包括2012年伦敦奥运会的期间，这将上升到30亿美元。上一次1948年的奥运会在伦敦举行，据报道，英国广播公司仅同意支付3000美元以直播其奥运赛事。但鉴于BBC的拮据的财政状况！英国奥林匹克委员会一直没有兑现支票。

这一切发生在奥运会和其他重大体育赛事成为大买卖之前。在自1980年开始到2001年担任国际奥委会主席的萨马兰奇领导下，奥运会开始完成商业化进程。萨马兰奇的超商业体制下的第一次奥林匹克运动会是1984年的美国洛杉矶奥运会，从这时开始，电视转播权的价格的飙升可以用官方奥运的座右铭“更快、更强、更高”来形容。北京从电视转播权得到的收入几乎是美国洛杉矶二亿八千七百万美元的10倍。

很正常，在数十亿美元面前，国际奥委会腐败的名声日彰。1999年，盐湖城冬季奥运会到来之季，一个重大的丑闻震动了奥林匹克运动。根据纽约时报，几项调查，其中包括由美国司法部开展的一项调查导致10名受贿的国际奥委会委员被驱逐。他们已经接受了贿赂，包括房地产分配，有薪假期，整形外科和为他们的子女支付大学学费。丑闻导致盐湖城市长丢职，但国际奥委会的老板萨马兰奇勉强幸免于难。

这项丑闻促动了人们对奥运会未来以及其完全缺乏透明度和民主问责制的理事机构及其不可告人的与大企业的联系的更深的思索。争论集中在国际奥委会是否可以'改革本身' ——回应着的讨论是关于作为执政党的中国'共产党（CCP）的未来。萨马兰奇离开后很久，腐败和贿选的丑闻继续笼罩着奥林匹克运动。在2006年，日本长野市被揭露向国际奥委会委员提供数百万美元的“不合理的和超水平的招待费” 。长野市在申办过程中使用超过440万美元来招待国际奥委会委员，相当于每人46500美元。

中国的政府，国际奥委会，及其大商业伙伴有很多共通之处。他们都是不民主的并基本上是腐败的机构。国际奥委会，绰号'俱乐部' ，不是一个民选机构——在中国共产党的执政机构所用的那套相同的制度下，由现有的国际奥委会委员选出新成员。因此认为独裁体制的奥运会可以催生中国的民主化是可笑的。国际奥委会不容任何异议。到1936年纳粹政权举办柏林奥运会时，美国国际奥委会代表Ernest Lee Jahncke公开呼吁抵制。这导致他在1935年被驱逐出国际奥委会，这是直到半世纪后盐湖城腐败丑闻之前历史上唯一被开除的一例。

'入世'——重新加入世界

2001年7月国际奥委会决定把2008年奥运会的主办权给北京的背后是冷静的商业算计和地缘政治的考虑。赞助奥运会的企业——包括可口可乐，阿迪达斯，麦当劳——热中于一个13亿人的潜在的大市场带给产品销售的机会。北京背后得到了一个强大的跨国企业游说团和美国的公司的支持，据报，美国公司贡献了三分之二的资金用于中国申办奥运会，共计4000万美元。八年前，中国政权未能成功申办2000年奥运会。因为相对记忆犹新的1989年的北京大屠杀对中国申办奥运的影响还很大，结果是悉尼得到了2000年奥运会的举办权。

然而， 2001年，萨马兰奇被指控幕后操纵以确保北京获得奥运会 。无可否认，这是加拿大的国际奥委会委员抛出的说法而且他当时支持的是其他主要候选城市，即多伦多。萨马兰奇说：奥运会将为中国打开“新的时代” 虽然他作为一个辅助（无表决权的）的国际奥委会成员，但也是美国的资本家和中国领导人之间一个关键的联系，他声称奥林匹克的决定在推进中国和世界的关系上“是非常重要的一步”，他说：“我认为它在中国和整个世界将有重大影响 “ 。国际奥委会作出这样的决定时正值中国加入世界贸易组织（ WTO ）的最后的谈判进行中，条件是苛刻的，其付出的代价——开放市场上的让步——比其他发展中国家成员承担的要高。在中国境内，这些谈判和由中方作出的让步的详情仍是'国家秘密'——记者深挖这方面信息的工作有被监禁的风险。卫报的中国资深记者约翰贾廷思评论道：“加入世贸组织意味着取消中国与全球经济一体化的力量之间的最后屏障”。这两个具有里程碑意义的决定包含着一个类似的战略目的——使得中国作为一个'利益相关者'更加牢固地融入全球的资本主义制度中去。

对中国的领导人来说，这两项决定被视为其继续推进愈加新自由主义化的'改革开放'政策的重要的支柱。这项政策包括私有化和缩编前国有企业以及把公共服务如教育和医疗服务'市场化'，到这个时候，这些政策引起了越来越大的工人阶级的反抗。北京将举办奥运会的消息给这个政权提供了一个受欢迎的吸引公众注意力的事物，有利于美化那令人厌恶的进一步的新自由主义全球化的政策。随着国际奥委会的决定公开出来，有大约20万人——大多是中产阶级——聚集在天安门广场上举办了盛大的庆祝活动。混合着期待的民族主义自豪感的浪潮就这样在中国'重新投入世界'——入世——和要恢复其作为一个经济超级大国应有的地位的主题下被政府掀起来了。北京奥运官员王伟称之为“中国国际地位上升的另一个里程碑和中华民族伟大复兴的历史事件” 。

与中共政权所做的所有之事一样，其主要焦点是国内形势。正如经济学家解释说的，“比起企图影响遥远的国家来说，它更加关注其自身的内部问题” 。为了让一个独裁的执政党挣扎着继续控制一个复杂的并且日益怨声载道的社会，还有就是为了把自己的力量聚集起来，奥运会是一个有力的武器，相当于'民族主义兴奋剂' 。

奥运会——跨国公司的战场

名义上的“共产党”政权得到了世界上层的商界领袖的极力追捧，这在这次奥运会中集中地体现出来了，可见这是一个悖论。一组精选的12大跨国公司，其中包括阿迪达斯，可口可乐，三星和通用电气公司，付给国际奥委会平均7200万美元而成为了所谓的北京奥运会'一流的'赞助者。
对于这类公司，奥运赞助和广告可以发挥决定性作用。正如人民日报评论的，“奥运会不仅仅是一个体育竞技场，而已也是一个跨国公司的战场” 。美国的柯达公司利用其赞助的1998年长野冬季奥运会打开了以前由富士垄断的日本胶卷市场。维萨信用卡（Visa）利用其自1986年以来的每一届奥运会国际赞助者的地位使其取代美国运通（American Express）成为美国的主要的信用卡公司。根据奥运规则，每个行业部门只有一家公司可以成为'顶级'赞助商。这解释了为何百事可乐公司一直被摒弃在外——自1928年以来，可口可乐公司一直与每一届奥运会联系在一起。这个独占的安排延伸到所有奥运设施里的广告和销售上，可口可乐享有这样的垄断。维萨信用卡（Visa）在卡尔加里运动会期间的广告活动的内容如下： “在1988年冬季奥运会，他们将以速度，耐力和技巧为荣，但不是美国运通（American Express）” 。

这一仗已转移到中国之境，它完全令运动会本身黯然失色。

香港的广告业主管说：“全球奥运赞助商有庞大的预算用在中国的市场营销上。”他还说： “当火炬接力在中国进行时，火炬经过的每个城市都充满着赞助标志”。这是中国计划者为什么安排了奥运会历史上距离最长——达13.7万公里或地球周长的三倍半——的火炬接力活动的一个重要原因。中国政权称之为'和谐之旅'，可它变成了一个戒备森严的闹剧，导致一些奥委会官员得出结论认为火炬接力也许已过其最迟销售日期。从历史上看，在其成为广告金矿之前，火炬接力于1936年作为纳粹胜利的一个象征发端。无论如何说，这个仪式和国际主义没有任何关系，相反这是一个展现出奥林匹克运动和法西斯及独裁政权之间浓厚的历史性的联系的线索。

“在希腊的古代奥运遗址点燃火炬，然后传递火炬通过不同的国家有其黑暗的渊源，这是在柏林举行1936年奥运会时候获得其现代形式的。纳粹领导精心计划之使其能展现出如下形象：第三帝国是一个现代的，国际影响力日益增长的经济富有活力的国家“ 。 [英国广播公司， 2008年4月5日]

在中国，政府试图通过掀起'奥运热'来横超对其统治构成严重威胁的日益上升的不满。此外，该政权希望奥运会将有助于引发消费热潮以便能给由于全球经济增长减速而导致的外部需求和出口的下降提供“缓冲”。中国遭受着过低的消费水平的损害——甚至印度人的消耗占其国内生产总值（ GDP ）更高 。这是因为中国的工资水平已远跟不上其整体经济的增长。就其占经济的比重而言，工资从1998年的53 ％下降到2007年的41 ％，这个下降是世界上一个最大的跌幅（这发生在为北京奥运会准备期间）。除了由跨国奥运赞助商大规模的销售活动外，超过5000种带有北京奥运会标志的产品已被投入市场，这包括服装，吉祥物玩偶，钥匙链，甚至纪念筷子。许多这种官方奥运产品是在工厂使用童工或违反其他法律的情况下生产出来的。

反工会巨头的联合

每一个'顶级' （奥运合作伙伴）公司在中国拥有巨大的利益，并期望他们在北京奥运上的投资能通过获得更多的市场份额而得到回报。可口可乐占领着中国的软饮料市场，并且是早在1979年当邓小平重新对外国企业开放下在中国设立的第一家美国公司。可口可乐公司在作为其最有利可图的第四大市场的中国有30000名员工。另一个'顶级'公司通用电气公司为北京奥运会提供电力和照明系统。它还拥有在美国拥有独家奥运广播电视权NBC Universal公司的股份，为此它付出了近9亿美元。在2001-06间，通用电气公司在中国的销售额增长了四倍。

另一个长期的'顶级'赞助商阿迪达斯2007年在中国的销售增长了45 ％ ，与此相比，它在欧洲的增长只有 5 ％。阿迪达斯的目的是到2010年在中国的销售的营业额达10亿欧元。德国的体育用品公司也从中国得到其产品的大部分的合同，但在这里我们所讨论的是中国人口的完全不同的部分。在非人的条件下制造阿迪达斯运动鞋的低工资的民工和那阿迪达斯视其为目标市场的好象居住在另一个星球上的很小的一个具有品牌意识的中产购物者阶层。

阿迪达斯采购的全球产品的一半以上来自禁止工会的国家，主要是来自中国。星期日时报（英国）的一篇文章中突出描述了该公司的中国分包商之可怕的劳动条件，该报告涉及到阿迪达斯在中国南部福州的三个“确立已久的合作伙伴工厂” 。工人对强迫加班和工资低于法定最低工资标准有抱怨。在2007年，他们每月仅赚取570元（ 83美元）——只能勉强买双阿迪达斯运动鞋。这份报告还表明中国国家控制的工会中华全国总工会（ACFTU）“被广泛指责什么都不做” 。当工人在2006年举行罢工，他们都被立即开除。

在这方面阿迪达斯不是特例。仔细看看其他'顶级'奥运赞助商就象在回顾反工会流氓陈列会。电子巨头三星是一个臭名昭著的反工会的雇主。该公司在韩国因为一系列非法活动，涉及勒索和行贿以使工会活动家放弃活动。这个国家的最强大的'财阀'在相当长的时间里是南韩的前军政权的重要支柱。hyankoreh的社论中说到三星： “在一个民主共和国里存在着的一个拥有先进技术的世界领袖，它采用着从独裁岁月里发展出来的原始的反工会的策略” 。

同样，可口可乐公司一直被指责破坏在哥伦比亚，巴基斯坦，土耳其，危地马拉和尼加拉瓜的工会活动。2001年，哥伦比亚工会起诉了该公司，因为该可口可乐公司“雇佣或以其他方式指示准军事安全部队对工会领导人使用极端的暴力和谋杀，酷刑，非法拘禁或以其他方式使工会领导人保持沉默” 。可口可乐公司对奥运官员的影响力在它的总部所在地亚特兰大获得1996年奥运会主办权中表露无遗。这只不过是在另一美国城市洛杉矶举行奥运会的十二年后。又一顶级奥运赞助商麦当劳，它是典型的破坏工会的公司。2002年国际自由工会联合会(ICFTU)组织的一个关于麦当劳用工做法方面的国际研讨会上，得出的结论是： “麦当劳在确定工资，健康和安全的标准上往往使用最低的标准或最低的法定要求，倾向于使用反工会的措施，包括隔离，骚扰和辞退那些作为工会的成员或支持者的雇员。

在中国，麦当劳也在一项重大丑闻中处在风头浪尖上，揭露它付给青年工人的工资低于最低工资40 ％。几个省级政府被大量的不利的宣传所迫而对该快餐巨头进行调查。不过，虽然他们证实在几个方面麦当劳已侵犯了中国的劳动法，但是他们拒绝寻找它犯了违反最低工资规定的罪。这件事（中国劳工论坛报道，麦当劳丑闻表明需要真正的工会， 2007年5月22日）导致傀儡中华全国总工会和麦当劳谈判达成第一次史无前例的对工会的承认的交易，当然中华全国总工会指派了管理代表来领导该工会的分支机构。这是中华全国总工会的通常做法。这是所谓的“具有中国特色的工会” ！这些奥运赞助商的反工会，反工人阶级的倾向是和支持反工人阶级的动机和支持反动的政权的国际奥委会悠久传统相符合的。

“是体育，不是政治”

国际奥委会、赞助商和中国政权声称奥运会只是体育运动，而不是政治，这完全是错误的。中国政权让火炬接力的路线通过躁动不安的地区西藏和新疆的决定就不能说是'非政治性'的 。6月当火炬通过西藏首府拉萨时，大多数西藏人由于实施的宵禁而看不到它，西藏的共产党领导人张庆黎（音译）发表了讲话，讲话中他呼吁粉碎奥运会以及中共的反对者。尴尬不堪的国际奥委会不得不向中国政府给予了难得的指责，重声必须“把体育和政治分开” 。

事实上，大部分奥林匹克竞赛都萦绕着政治性争议： 1936年的柏林，1972年的慕尼黑，1968年的墨西哥城，1980年的莫斯科，1984年的洛杉矶;名单很长。奥运会在墨西哥城开幕的十天之前，军队开枪打死了数百名示威的学生，这被称为'特拉特洛尔科大屠杀' 。墨西哥也是一党专政，美帝国主义和其他西方资本主义势力与之有着重要的经济和战略联系。无疑，国际奥委会与墨西哥的总统古斯塔沃（Gustavo Díaz Ordaz）密切合作以保证大屠杀不会危及运动会。然而，当非洲裔美国黑人运动员托密史密斯（Tommie Smith）和约翰卡洛斯（John Carlos）在墨西哥城的金牌领奖台做出闻名的象征着'黑人权利'的举手礼后，他们在国际奥委会主席艾佛利•布伦戴奇（Avery Brundage）命令下被驱逐出运动会。

国际奥委会及其支持者希望两者兼得。当他们和独裁者打交道时，他们以下面的理由，既奥运会可以有利于推动民主和人权来使之正当化。换句话说，他们言及了一个明确的政治理念。但是，这被证明不过是一场笑剧，看它今天在中国的答复便知，它答复说奥林匹克只是一项体育活动，而不是一个政治组织。

作为目前国际奥委会主席的罗格（Jacques Rogge）荒谬的说1988年奥运会帮助韩国由当时的另一独裁向“充满活力的民主”转变。据罗格的说法， “运动会通过媒体人的存在再次发挥了关键作用” 。 [金融时报， 2008年4月26日]

在现实生活中，韩国的军事政权迫于在1987年6月（汉城奥运会整整一年前）大规模罢工和示威浪潮的爆发的压力，这种爆发持续了三年。这对中国来说是一个重要的经验教训，显示了在与独裁斗争中能起到决定性作用的是大规模的工人斗争。

当谈到为民主权利而斗争时，奥运会是问题的一部分，而非解决问题的方法。在最近的一份报告中，国际特赦组织警告说， “申办奥运已成为打击言论和集会自由的一个含蓄的借口” 。 [北京奥运会带来了什么人权遗产？国际特赦组织， 2008年4月1日]

随着在藏族地区估计有150人死于安全部队， 2008年已是中国自1989年以来最严重的国家镇压之一年。使国际奥委会和其辩护士的观点不攻自破，国际特赦组织的报告“大部分新一轮的对活动家和新闻工作者的镇压实际上就是由于奥运会” 。

中国不是单枪匹马地利用奥运会严厉打击潜在的反对者。国际刑警组织已同意与中国当局合作，开放其数据库以“帮助中国确保制造麻烦者不能进入中国” 。表面上这些措施针对的是来自新疆，西藏的'恐怖分子'（尽管没有证据证明这种恐怖威胁的存在）。正如卓越的持不同政见者胡佳评论说的： “最大的威胁不一定是恐怖分子或罪犯，最大的威胁是那些揭露中国的社会问题以及抗议政府的人士” 。

独裁传统

回溯国际奥委会的起源，它有一个种族主义，反共产主义和支持独裁政权的传统。1896年现代奥林匹克运动的创始人是法国贵族皮埃尔•德•顾拜旦（Pierre de Coubertin）。他想的不是一个群众性的全民的体育运动而是一个几乎完全是为'游手好闲的富人'和军官阶层而创设了现代奥林匹克运动。在如皮埃尔•德•顾拜旦（Pierre de Coubertin）贵族的眼里，下层阶级的人无法掌握'公平竞赛'的概念。与此同时，妇女也被视为完全不适合于体育世界——直到第二次世界大战后这种观点一直没有太大变化。在1948年的伦敦奥运会上，女运动员和男运动员之比是1比10。实际上比起4年前美国洛杉矶奥运会，在1936年的柏林运动会上有更多的非洲裔美国黑人运动员参加比赛，因为美国制度化的种族主义，使得体育成为白人的专利，直到20世纪50年代才有所改变。

皮埃尔•德•顾拜旦（Pierre de Coubertin）男爵是一个'伟大的法国爱国者'，不过他是德国纳粹政权的坚定的拥护者。1937年他逝世时，他把他一生的文学收藏遗赠给了希特勒的政府。在一个奇怪的注脚中可以知道，皮埃尔•德•顾拜旦（Pierre de Coubertin）逝世六个月后，他的尸体在瑞士洛桑被挖出，他的心也被挖出，并运到希腊的奥林匹亚。在有他的老朋友，一个纳粹官员并主办了1936年的奥运会的Carl Diem参加的葬礼中重新安葬在希腊。

希特勒1933年1月上台前二年，国际奥委会授予1936年的奥运会的主办权给柏林。不过，他们没有显示出任何遗憾，随后国际奥委会领导人——激烈的——为纳粹举办奥运会的权利辩护。由于新闻中出现了纳粹恐怖对待工会、共产党人、社会主义者和犹太人的报道，呼吁抵制柏林运动会增长着，尤其是在美国、英国、法国、瑞典、捷克斯洛伐克和荷兰。1934年的一项民意调查显示42 ％的美国人支持对该奥运会的抵制。面对危机，美国奥林匹克委员会派出其主席艾佛利•布伦戴奇（Avery Brundage）到德国以评估按照'奥林匹克原则'该运动会能否举行。在现实中，艾佛利•布伦戴奇（Avery Brundage）的任务是有意识地操纵破坏抵制运动，其间艾佛利•布伦戴奇（Avery Brundage）就指责“犹太人和共产党人” 。在他1934年9月访问德国期间，他在三名纳粹党高级领导人在场情况下会见了犹太运动员，其中之一穿着整套SS制服并佩带着手枪。犹太运动员担心他们的生命安全而在这次采访中不敢说出任何批评纳粹政权的言论。艾佛利•布伦戴奇（Avery Brundage）回到美国并强烈支持柏林奥运会。

后来成为国际奥委会主席（ 1952年至1972年）的艾佛利•布伦戴奇（Avery Brundage），也是一个希特勒仰慕者并且是一个公开的反犹份子 ，他把Main Kampf作为他的“偶像” 。他的朋友，瑞典主要的资本家Sigfrid Edström从1946年至1952年担任国际奥委会主席之职，他是另一个法西斯支持者 。1933年11月，由于抵制的问题很盛， edström曾写信给艾佛利•布伦戴奇（Avery Brundage）说： “纳粹反对犹太人的影响只能这样理解，即如果你住在德国，在一些较重要的生意中，犹太人控制着大多数生意而且制止他人的进入…, 这些犹太人中许多出生身波兰或俄罗斯并且具有完全不同于西方人观念的思想。如果德国仍然想保持为一个'雅利安'的国家和话，改变这些条件是绝对必要的“ 。 [1934年2月8日edström给艾佛利•布伦戴奇（Avery Brundage）的信，瑞典国家档案馆]

柏林奥运会后，那时作为国际奥委会副主席的edström 参加了纳粹党在纽伦堡的集会并且稍后宣布：“这是我所见过的一次最伟大的‘秀’，他[希特勒]可能是世界上有史以来人们所知的最强有力的并得到强烈支持的个人。我肯定有六千万人都愿意为他死或为他做任何事。 ” 表示柏林没有失常，一年后，国际奥委会决定授予1940年奥运会给日本。由于战争，这届奥运会没有举行。国际奥委会的决定又一次为军国主义的极端反共的政权作伥，这从1931年军事占领中国的日本在中国犯下的暴行中可以得到充分的认识。国际上，工厂主和资本家政客中有一个庞大的阶层看好德国、日本和其它独裁的法西斯政权并把它们视为'共产主义'蔓延的壁垒。只有当希特勒和日本天皇的帝国主义的野心与他们自己发生冲突，资本家的'民主政治'才会诉诸'反纳粹'的花言巧语直至战争。与今天的中国并行不悖，国际上很大一部分资本家把当前的“仅仅名义上的共产主义”政权看作自己的希望所在，即保持中国对全球资本主义的'开放' 并且让它控制住其庞大的越来越难以控制的工人阶级。这就是为什么他们积极支持中国独裁政府主办奥运会的原因。

二战后，edström和艾佛利•布伦戴奇（Avery Brundage）利用他们的国际奥委会的职位设法争取释放被定罪的纳粹战犯。最著名的是，他们为释放俄罗斯监狱里的Karl Ritter von Halt而从事活动，这个人直到战争结束前是德国的国际奥委会委员而且是希特勒政权中的一个领导人物。1951年Karl Ritter von Halt从监狱里释放出来以此作为让苏联首次承认奥林匹克运动会的交易的一部分。艾佛利•布伦戴奇（Avery Brundage）在整个国际奥委会主席的任期内继续捍卫右翼的事业。他是参议员麦卡锡在20世纪50年代反共产主义政治迫害的一位热衷的支持者并且批评艾森豪威尔总统在朝鲜的停战决定，艾佛利•布伦戴奇（Avery Brundage）称之为“对在亚洲的所有的白人而言，这是一个可耻的行为” 。呼吁艾佛利•布伦戴奇（Avery Brundage）辞去奥林匹克运动领导人的职位是汤姆•史密斯和约翰•卡洛斯在1968年的'沉默抗议'中提出的一项要求（他们还要求恢复穆罕默德阿里的世界重量级拳击冠军）。

1980年，胡安•安东尼奥•萨马兰奇，可以说是掌舵的最强有力的国际奥委会主席。他形容自己是“百分之百佛朗哥主义者 ” ——提及到了西班牙的前法西斯独裁者。由国际奥委会所发行的萨马兰奇的官方的传记对他长期的政治生涯一字不提——他其实是一个佛朗哥的独裁统治下的西班牙议会的法西斯副主席和体育部长。正是在这一时期，萨马兰奇发展了与阿迪达斯帝国的继承人霍斯特‧达斯勒（Horst Dassler）的紧密联系，霍斯特‧达斯勒（Horst Dassler）是那个时候奥林匹克运动的一个关键的幕后人物。在20世纪60年代，阿迪达斯鲜明的黑白足球是在萨马兰奇的帮助下谈判达成的合同下由西班牙监狱中的囚犯生产的。这种法西斯政权下强迫使用监狱劳动是——在一个较小的规模上——今天全球化的血汗工厂的生产链的一个原型。

The Olympics, big business and dictatorship

Rather than the Olympic movement's self-professed ideals of 'internationalism' and 'fair play', hosting the Games is about two at first sight contradictory forces: nationalistic flag-waving and capitalist globalisation.

"Beijing win is big business," ran a BBC headline in July 2001. China had just been awarded the 2008 Olympic Games. The Olympics is not just the world's most prestigious sporting event; it is also one of the most successful marketing empires in the history of capitalism. The Olympic symbol – five connected rings representing the five continents – is one of world's most recognisable and closely guarded corporate logos. The small, secretive, unelected group that controls the Olympics, the 110-member International Olympic Committee (IOC), commands huge financial resources and is feted by governments and business leaders the world over. Former IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch insisted on being addressed as 'Your Excellency'. His megalomania earned him the nickname 'Lord of the Rings'.
The Beijing Olympics is expected to bring in $2.5 billion from television broadcasting alone. This is set to rise to $3 billion for the period up to and including the London Olympics in 2012. The last time the Games were held in London, in 1948, the BBC reportedly agreed to pay just $3,000 to televise the event. But the British Olympic Committee never cashed the cheque, out of consideration for the BBC's delicate financial situation!
All this was before the Olympics and other major sporting events became big business. The corporate makeover of the Olympics took place under Samaranch, who was IOC president from 1980-2001. The first Olympiad to be staged under Samaranch's ultra-commercial regime were the 1984 Games in Los Angeles, and from this point onwards the pricetag for television broadcasting rights soared "faster, stronger, higher," in the words of the official Olympic motto. The revenue from television rights in Beijing is almost ten times the $287 million paid in Los Angeles.
Unsurprisingly, with billions of dollars at stake, the IOC has acquired a reputation for corruption. A major scandal shook the Olympic movement in 1999 over the coming Winter Games in Salt Lake City. Several investigations, including one by the US Department of Justice, led to the expulsion of ten IOC members who had been "caught elbow-deep in the goody bag" according to The New York Times. They had accepted bribes ranging from real estate deals, paid holidays, plastic surgery and college tuition payments for their children. The scandal cost the mayor of Salt Lake City her job, but IOC boss Samaranch survived. Narrowly.
This scandal prompted intense speculation about the future of the Olympics, the total lack of transparency and democratic accountability of its governing body, and its shady connections with big business. A debate raged over whether the IOC could 'reform itself' – echoing discussions over the future of China's ruling 'communist' party (CCP). Corruption and vote-buying scandals however continue to shroud the Olympic movement long after the departure of Samaranch. In 2006, the Japanese city of Nagano was found to have provided millions of dollars in an "illegitimate and excessive level of hospitality" to IOC members. Nagano spent more than $4.4 million to entertain IOC members during the bidding process, which works out at $46,500 per head.
China's government, the IOC, and its big business partners have a lot in common. They are all undemocratic and mostly corrupt organisations. The IOC, nicknamed 'The Club', is not an elected body – existing IOC members select new members, under a system not unlike that of the CCP's ruling bodies. Hence, the notion that the Olympics, controlled by a dictatorial regime, could be an agent for democratic change in China is ludicrous. The IOC brooks no dissent. In the run up to the 1936 Berlin Games, hosted by the Nazi regime, Ernest Lee Jahncke, an American IOC representative, spoke out publicly for a boycott. This led to his expulsion from the IOC in 1935, the only expulsion in its history until the Salt Lake City corruption scandal half a century later.

'Rushi' – 'rejoining the world'

Hard-headed business calculations but also geo-political considerations lay behind the IOC's decision in July 2001 to award the 2008 Games to Beijing. The corporate sponsors of the Olympics – including Coca Cola, Adidas and McDonald's – were delirious over the opportunities this presented for 'product positioning' in a potential market of 1.3 billion people. A powerful multinational business lobby had thrown its weight behind Beijing, with US companies reportedly contributing two-thirds of the funds for the Chinese bid, which totalled $40 million. The Chinese regime had failed eight years earlier in its bid for the 2000 Olympics. That decision went to Sydney, with the relatively fresh memory of the 1989 Beijing massacre weighing against the Chinese bid.
In 2001, however, Samaranch was accused of "pulling strings behind the scenes to ensure that Beijing won the Games". Admittedly, it was Canada's IOC member who made this claim and he backed the other main candidate, Toronto. The Olympics would open"a new era for China," said Samaranch. Henry Kissinger, who is an auxiliary (non-voting) member of the IOC, but also a key link between US capitalism and the Chinese leaders, called the Olympic decision"a very important step in the evolution of China's relation with the world. I think it will have a major impact in China, and on the whole, a positive impact, in the sense of giving them a high incentive for moderate conduct both internationally and domestically in the years ahead." The IOC decision coincided with the final negotiations for China's accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), on tough terms that cost it more – in market-opening concessions – than any other 'developing country' member. The details of these negotiations and the concessions made by the Chinese side are still a 'state secret' inside China – journalists risk imprisonment for digging too deeply in this area. Joining the WTO meant the removal of "the last barriers between China and the forces of globalisation," commented The Guardian's veteran China correspondent, John Gittings. These two landmark decisions shared a similar strategic purpose – to tie China as a 'stakeholder' more firmly into the global capitalist system.
For China's leaders, both decisions were seen as important pillars for the continuation of their increasingly neo-liberal 'reform and opening' policy. This policy, including the privatisation and downsizing of former state-owned companies, and 'marketisation' of public services such as education and healthcare, was by this time running into increasing working class resistance. The news that Beijing would host the Olympics provided a welcome public distraction for the regime, helping to 'sugar the pill' of further neo-liberal globalisation. Huge celebrations were organised once the IOC's decision became public, with possibly 200,000 – mostly from the middle classes – thronging Beijing's Tiananmen Square. A wave of nationalistic pride mixed with expectation was thus engineered by the government on the theme that China was 'rejoining the world' – 'rushi' – and reclaiming its rightful place as an economic superpower. Beijing Olympic official, Wang Wei, called this "another milestone in China's rising international status and a historical event in the great renaissance of the Chinese nation."
As with almost everything the CCP regime does, its main focus is on the situation at home. As The Economist explained it is "more concerned with its own internal problems than with trying to influence faraway countries". For an authoritarian ruling party struggling to keep control of a complex and fractious society, and to hold its own forces together, the Olympic Games are a powerful weapon, the equivalent of 'nationalism on steroids'.

Olympics – "a battlefield for multinationals"

The paradox of a nominally 'communist' regime that enjoys huge, almost sycophantic support from the world's top business leaders is epitomised in these Olympics. A select group of twelve giant multinationals, which include Adidas, Coca Cola, Samsung and General Electric, have paid an average of $72 million each to the IOC to become so-called 'top-tier' sponsors of the Beijing Games.
For such companies Olympic sponsorship and advertising can play a decisive role. As the People's Daily commented, "The Olympic Games is more than a sports arena, but also a battlefield for multinationals." Kodak of the US used its sponsorship of the 1998 Nagano Winter Games as a lever to prize open the Japanese photographic film market, previously monopolised by Fuji. Visa International's sponsorship of every Olympics since 1986 has helped it to displace American Express as the leading credit card company in the United States. Under Olympic rules, only one company from each corporate sector is accepted as a 'top-tier' sponsor. This explains why Pepsi Co. has always been shut out – Coca Cola has been associated with every Olympic Games since 1928. This exclusive arrangement extends to advertising and sales at all Olympic facilities, where Coke has a monopoly. Visa's advertising campaign at the time of the Calgary Games read:"At the 1988 Winter Olympics, they will honour speed, stamina and skill. But not American Express."
This battle has shifted to Chinese soil, where it completely overshadows the Games themselves.
"The global Olympic sponsors have huge budgets for marketing in China," said a Hong Kong advertising chief. "When the torch relay is in China, every city which the torch passes through will be full of sponsorship logos," he said. This is one important reason why the Chinese planners opted for the longest torch-relay in the history of the Olympics, covering 137,000 kilometres, or three and a half times the earth's circumference. This 'Journey of Harmony', as the Chinese regime called it, turned into a heavily guarded farce, leading some Olympic officials to conclude that the torch-relay may have passed its 'sell-by' date. Historically, before it became an advertising bonanza, the torch-relay began life in 1936 as a symbol of Nazi triumphalism. This ritual has nothing whatsoever to do with internationalism, on the contrary it is one of the clues betraying a strong historical connection between the Olympic movement and fascist and authoritarian regimes.
"The idea of lighting the torch at the ancient Olympian site in Greece and then running it through different countries has much darker origins. It was invented in its modern form by the organisers of the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. And it was planned with immense care by the Nazi leadership to project the image of the Third Reich as a modern, economically dynamic state with growing international influence." [BBC, 5 April 2008]

In China, the government has been whipping up 'Olympic fever' in an attempt to cut across rising discontent that poses an increasingly serious threat to its rule. Additionally, the regime hopes the Olympics will help trigger a consumer boom, to act as a 'shock absorber' for declining external demand and falling exports as the global economy slows. China suffers from an abnormally low level of consumption – even Indians consume more as a share of gross domestic product (GDP). This is because wage levels have nowhere near kept pace with the overall growth of the economy. As a share of GDP, wages have fallen from 53 percent in 1998 to 41 percent in 2007, one of the sharpest declines in the world (and this during the period of preparation for the Beijing Games). In addition to massive sales campaigns by the multinational Olympic sponsors, more than 5,000 products have been dumped on the market with the Beijing Olympics logo. This includes apparel, mascot dolls, key-chains and even commemorative chopsticks. A number of these official Olympic products have been made at factories using child labour or violating other laws.

Union-busters united

Every one of the 'TOP' (The Olympic Partner) companies has a huge stake in China, and expects their Beijing Olympic investments to be rewarded with increased market share. Coca Cola dominates the Chinese soft drinks market and was the first American company to set up in China back in 1979, when Deng Xiaoping reopened the country to foreign business. Coca Cola has 30,000 employees in China, which is its fourth largest – and most profitable – market. General Electric, another 'TOP' company, is providing power and lighting systems for the Beijing Games. It also has an ownership stake in NBC Universal, which holds exclusive Olympic TV broadcasting rights in the United States, for which it paid nearly $900 million. GE's sales in China grew fourfold in 2001-06.
Adidas, another long-term 'TOP' sponsor, saw its China sales grow by 45 percent in 2007, compared to five percent growth in Europe. Adidas aims for a sale turnover of one billion euros in China by 2010. The German sportswear giant also contracts most of its production from China, but here we are discussing an entirely different segment of the Chinese population. The low-paid migrant factory workers that make Adidas sneakers under inhuman conditions, might as well inhabit another planet to that thin layer of brand conscious middle-class Chinese shoppers that Adidas pitches its marketing towards.
Adidas sources more than half its global production from countries where trade unions are banned, principally China. The terrible conditions at the company's Chinese subcontractors were highlighted in an article in the Sunday Times (UK), which reported from three "long-established partner factories" of Adidas in Fuzhou, southern China. Workers complained of forced overtime and wages below the legal minimum. They earned just 570 yuan ($83) per month in 2007 – barely enough to buy a pair of Adidas sneakers. This report also showed that China's state-controlled trade union, the ACFTU, "was widely accused of doing nothing". When workers staged a strike in 2006 they were all summarily dismissed.
Adidas is not exceptional in this regard. A closer look at other 'top-tier' Olympic sponsors is like reviewing a rogues gallery of union-busters. Electronics giant Samsung is an infamous anti-union employer. The company has been fined in South Korea for a range of illegal activities involving blackmail and bribes to get trade union activists to quit. This most powerful of the country's 'chaebol' conglomerates was for a long time a pillar of South Korea's former military regime. An editorial in Hyankoreh said of Samsung: "In a democratic republic you have a world leader in advanced technology using primitive anti-union tactics from the development dictatorship years".
Likewise, Coca Cola has been accused of union-busting activities in Colombia, Pakistan, Turkey, Guatemala and Nicaragua. A law suit was filed against the company by Colombian trade unions in 2001 on the grounds that Coke bottlers had "contracted with or otherwise directed paramilitary security forces that utilised extreme violence and murdered, tortured, unlawfully detained or otherwise silenced trade union leaders." Coca Cola's clout with Olympic officials was demonstrated when Atlanta, where the company is headquartered, got to hold the 1996 Olympics. This was just twelve years after another US city, Los Angeles, held the Games. Yet another top-tier Olympic sponsor, McDonald's, is the archetypal union-busting company. An international seminar on labour practises at McDonald's, organised by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) in 2002, concluded that: "McDonald's tends to use minimum standards or minimum legal requirements in setting wages, health and safety practices, has a propensity to use anti-union measures including isolating, harassing and dismissing employees who are union members or supporters."
In China too, McDonald's was at the centre of a major scandal, when it was found to be paying young workers 40 percent below already low minimum wage rates. Several provincial governments were compelled by massive adverse publicity to investigate the fast-food giant. But while they confirmed that McDonald's had violated China's labour code in several areas, they refused to find it guilty of violating minimum wage rules. This affair (reported on chinaworker.info – China's 'McScandal' shows the need for real trade unions, 22 May 2007) resulted in the puppet ACFTU negotiating its first ever union recognition deals with McDonald's, but of course with management representatives appointed to lead its union branches. This is normal ACFTU practise. It is called, "trade unionism with Chinese characteristics"! The anti-union, anti-working class bias of these Olympic sponsors conforms to a long tradition at the IOC of support for reactionary and anti-working class causes and regimes.

"Sport, not politics"

To claim, as do the IOC, the sponsors and the Chinese regime, that the Olympics is only about sport, not politics, is utterly false. The Chinese regime's decision to route the torch-relay through the restive regions of Tibet and Xinjiang cannot be described as 'non-political'. As the torch was whizzed through the Tibetan capital of Lhasa in June, with most Tibetans under curfew and unable to see it, Tibet's Communist Party chief Zhang Qingli delivered a speech in which he called for opponents of the Olympic Games – and the CCP – to be "smashed". An embarrassed IOC was compelled to deliver a rare rebuke to the Chinese government, reiterating that it must "separate sport and politics."
In fact, most Olympiads have been surrounded by political controversy: Berlin 1936, Munich 1972, Mexico City 1968, Moscow 1980, Los Angeles 1984; the list is long. Ten days before the Olympic Games opened in Mexico City, the military shot and killed hundreds of student demonstrators in what has become known as the 'Tlatelolco Massacre'. Mexico too was a one-party dictatorship that US imperialism and other Western capitalist powers had important economic and strategic links with. True to form, the IOC worked closely with Mexico's president Gustavo Díaz Ordaz to insure that the massacre did not jeopardise the Games. Yet when the Afro-American athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos famously gave the 'black power' salute from the medals podium in Mexico City, they were expelled from the Games on the orders of the IOC president Avery Brundage.
The IOC and its supporters want it both ways. When they deal with dictators, they justify this with arguments that the Olympics can help to advance democracy and human rights. In other words, they claim an explicitly political rationale. But when this is shown to be a farce, as in China today, they reply that the Olympics is a sporting, not a political organisation.
Jacques Rogge, the current IOC president, has made the absurd claim that the Olympics in 1988 helped turn South Korea, then another dictatorship, into "a vibrant democracy". According to Rogge, "The Games played a key role, again by the presence of media people." [Financial Times, 26 April 2008]
In real life, the South Korean military regime was forced from power by a wave of mass strikes and demonstrations that erupted in June 1987 (a full year before the Seoul Olympic Games) and continued for three years. This is an important lesson for China, showing the decisive role of mass workers' struggle in the battle against dictatorship.
When it comes to the struggle for democratic rights, the Olympics is part of the problem rather than the solution. In a recent report, Amnesty International warns, "Hosting the Olympic Games has become a thinly veiled excuse to crackdown on freedom of expression and assembly." [What human rights legacy for the Beijing Olympics? Amnesty International, 1 April 2008]
With an estimated 150 people killed by security forces in Tibetan areas, 2008 is already one of the worst years for state repression in China since 1989. Annihilating the arguments of the IOC and its apologists, Amnesty's report states "much of the current wave of repression against activists and journalists is occurring not in spite of, but actually because of the Olympics."
Neither is the Chinese state acting alone as it uses the Olympics to crack down on potential opposition. Interpol has agreed to cooperate with Chinese authorities, opening its database to "help China ensure that mischief-makers do not enter". Ostensibly such measures are aimed at 'terrorists' from Xinjiang and Tibet (despite the lack of evidence that such terrorist threats exist). As prominent dissident Hu Jia commented: "The greatest threats aren't necessarily terrorists or crime, the greatest threats are those who reveal China's social problems and protest the government."

Authoritarian traditions

The IOC has a tradition of racism, anti-communism and support for authoritarian regimes stretching back to its origins. The founder of the modern Olympic movement in 1896 was the French aristocrat Pierre de Coubertin. His vision was not of a popular sporting movement, for the masses, but one almost exclusively for the 'idle rich' and military officer caste. In the view of noblemen like de Coubertin, the lower classes were unable to grasp the concept of 'fair play'. Women, meanwhile, were deemed completely unsuited to the world of sport – a view did not change much until after the Second World War. At the London Olympics of 1948, women athletes were outnumbered ten to one by men. More Afro-American athletes actually competed in the 1936 Berlin Games than in Los Angeles four years earlier, due to the institutionalised racism in the US which kept most sports as a white preserve until the 1950s.
Baron de Coubertin was a 'great French patriot' who nevertheless became a staunch admirer of the Nazi regime in Germany. On his death in 1937, he bequeathed his lifetime literary collection to Hitler's government. In a bizarre footnote, six months after his death, de Coubertin's corpse was dug up in Lausanne, Switzerland, and his heart was cut out and transported to Olympia in Greece. There it was reburied in a ceremony attended by his long-time friend, the Nazi official and organiser of the 1936 Berlin Games, Carl Diem.
The IOC awarded the 1936 Games to Berlin two years before Hitler came to power in January 1933. Rather than displaying regret, however, IOC leaders subsequently – and vehemently – defended the Nazi's rights to hold the Games. As news emerged of Nazi terror directed against trade unionists, communists, socialists and Jews, the call for a boycott of the Berlin Games grew, especially in the US, Britain, France, Sweden, Czechoslovakia and the Netherlands. A 1934 opinion poll showed that 42 percent of Americans supported an Olympic boycott. Facing a crisis, the US Olympic Committee sent its president, Avery Brundage, to Germany to assess if the Games could be held in accordance with 'Olympic principles'. In reality, Brundage's mission was a conscious manoeuvre to derail the boycott campaign, which Brundage blamed on "the Jews and the communists". During his visit to Germany in September 1934, he met with Jewish athletes in the presence of three senior Nazi party leaders, one in full SS uniform with his pistol. The Jewish athletes feared for their lives and dared not utter any criticism of the Nazi regime at this interview. Brundage returned to the US giving the Berlin Games his strong endorsement.
Brundage, who later became IOC president (1952-72), was also an admirer of Hitler and an open anti-semite. He cited Main Kampf as his "spiritual inspiration". His friend, the leading Swedish capitalist Sigfrid Edström, who was IOC president from 1946-52, was yet another fascist sympathiser. In November 1933, as the boycott issue raged, Edström had written to Brundage: "The Nazi opposition to the influence of the Jews can only be understood if you live over in Germany. In some of the more important trades the Jews govern the majority and stop all others from coming in … Many of these Jews are of Polish or Russian origin with minds entirely different from the western mind. An alteration of these conditions is absolutely necessary if Germany should remain a 'white' nation." [Letter from Edström to Brundage, 8 February 1934, from The National Archives of Sweden]
After the Berlin Olympics, Edström, then vice-president of the IOC, attended a Nazi party rally in Nuremberg and later declared: "It was one of the greatest shows I have ever seen … He [Hitler] is probably one of the most powerful and strongly supported individuals that the world's history has ever known. 60 million people I am sure are willing to die for him and do whatever he requests."
Indicating that Berlin was no aberration, the IOC decided one year later to award the 1940 Olympics to Japan. That Olympiad never took place due to the war. The IOC's decision to promote yet another militaristic and rabidly anti-communist regime, had been taken in the full knowledge of Japan's atrocities in China, which its armies had occupied in 1931. There was a sizeable layer of industrialists and capitalist politicians internationally who looked favourably upon Germany, Japan and other authoritarian or fascist regimes seeing them as bulwarks against the spread of 'communism'. Only when the imperialist ambitions of Hitler and the Japanese Emperor clashed with their own, did the capitalists 'democracies' resort to 'anti-Nazi' rhetoric and eventually war. The parallel with China today, is that a large segment of the capitalists internationally see the current 'communist-in-name-only' regime as their best hope to keep China 'open' for global capitalism and hold down its huge, increasingly restive working class. This is why they enthusiastically support the Chinese dictatorship's hosting of the Olympics.
After the Second World War, both Edström and Brundage used their IOC positions to try to secure the release of convicted Nazi war criminals. Most famously, they campaigned for the release from a Russian prison of Karl Ritter von Halt, who was Germany's IOC member up until the end of the war, as well as a leading figure in Hitler's regime. Ritter von Halt was released from prison in 1951 as part of the deal that saw the Soviet Union admitted to the Olympic movement for the first time. Brundage continued to defend right-wing causes throughout his term as IOC president. He was a keen supporter of Senator McCarthy's anti-communist witch-hunts in the 1950s and criticised president Eisenhower for halting the war in Korea, which Brundage called "a shameful act for all the whites in Asia". The call for Brundage's resignation as head of the Olympic movement was one of the demands raised by Tommy Smith and John Carlos in their 1968 'silent protest' (they also demanded that Mohammed Ali's world heavyweight boxing title be restored).
In 1980, Juan Antonio Samaranch, arguably the most powerful of IOC presidents, took the helm. He described himself as "100 percent Francoist" – a reference to Spain's former fascist dictator. The official biography of Samaranch, published by the IOC, does not say a word about his long political career – that he was in fact a fascist deputy in the Cortes and minister of sport under Franco's dictatorship. It was during this period that Samaranch developed strong contacts with Horst Dassler, heir to the Adidas empire, and a key behind-the-scenes figure in the Olympic movement at that time. In the 1960s, Adidas' distinctive black and white footballs were made by prisoners in Spanish jails, under a contract negotiated with the help of Samaranch. This use of forced prison labour under a fascist regime was a prototype – on a much smaller scale – to today's globalised sweatshop production chain.

译自CWI的绿色奥运？

绿色奥运？

北京是世界上污染最严重的城市之一

Vincent Kolo和陈立志， 中国劳工论坛

北京奥运会作为'绿色奥运'进行宣传。在2001年，中国政权使用这个口号来成功地申办奥运会，通过雄心勃勃地承诺改善中国首都的空气质量和水质而得到支持。不过，这始终是一个难以完成的任务。北京是世界上污染最严重的城市之一。中国官员不是解决实际问题，而是选择了若干短期的和装饰性的措施，这些措施只为运动会期间的改善发挥作用。使用临时权宜之计——用博客的话说叫“雾里花和镜中月” ——是中国政权的品性。在世界上，中国面临着最可怕的生态危机。在和平时期，一个国家的自然资源，水和土地如此程度的退化是无前例的。

尽管为奥运几乎支出了170亿美元来改善环境，北京不断的建设浪潮和爆发式地汽车使用阻碍了政府改善空气质量的努力。在奥运会期间，政府下令停使150万辆汽车以减少空中的毒素。为了奥运会，种植了百万计的树木，尤其是在首都国际机场的附近，以便迎接新来者。鉴于它给北京本已稀缺的水资源带来了额外的压力，环保人士对此带来的好处有分歧。近200家钢铁，水泥，化工厂和其他工厂已被关闭或搬迁至城市边界以外。但正如网站有线评论说的， “周边城市愉快地为首都的污秽的工厂铺出了欢迎垫子，然后让它们喷出纪录级数量的煤烟到该地区的天空，让它们嗡嗡叫” 。高达70 ％ 的北京的大气污染来自周边省份——这只是城市奥运翻新门面被更广的经济活动所破坏的一个例子。联合国环境计划署一项报告称“广泛使用煤炭，城市的地理位置和日益增多的机动车辆意味着改善北京的空气质量的步子缓慢下来。” 这份报告发现，2006年北京的空气中作为一个主要的健康危害物质的小颗粒物的平均水平高于世界卫生组织（WHO）的指导标准的8倍。其他类型的空气污染——二氧化硫，二氧化氮及一氧化碳——上升或在3年的下降后于2006年开始不再改善。

为了健康，患有哮喘的男子马拉松世界纪录保持者格布雷西拉西耶放弃了北京奥运会期间的该项比赛，虽然他仍然打算参加在北京举行的10000米比赛。他说“中国的污染对我的健康是一个威胁，在我目前的状况下，我很难跑四十二公里”。美国奥运代表团宣布，它将携带1000只特别设计的空气污染口罩到北京。据一位美国运动员所说，他们穿上新的装束，整队看上去像“一次星球大战中的达斯•维德们的聚会” 。然而，北京的1700万居民不得不每天呼吸这样的空气，而不只是在一个为期三周的国际竞争中。而其他声明狼藉的污染大城市如墨西哥城和洛杉矶的平均空气污染指数分别为66和44，而北京记录中的数字，有时超过300 ，此时，空气成为'危险物' 。对于一个暴露在这种程度的空气毒素中的儿童，这相当于一天吸烟40支！北京大学环境科学教授的研究表明，2002年，微粒所造成的污染导致北京2.5万人死亡，导致该城市的国内生产总值损失7.2 ％ 。据2006年由国家环境保护总局（ SEPA ）实施的84个中国主要城市的统计调查结果， 北京达到国家空气质量标准的天数是最少的——而且2007年其空气质量更差了。

三分之一的城市尘埃微粒来自大约3000个建筑工地，这些工地在中国城市整日整夜开工。工作并且在许多情况下还生活在这些工地上的低工资的民工却没有被提供奥林匹克式防毒面具。空气质量的一个更大的威胁是北京日益增长的汽车量，到奥运会时，汽车数将达到330万辆，每天有一千多辆新的汽车开上城市的道路。在2007年，当汽车拥有者突破三百万时，北京的市长王岐山说，这象征着城市的“繁荣和快速发展” 。但在新浪网的一个调查中，受访者却有着另一种观点，55 ％的人说这是'坏消息'以及31 ％的人担心城市的污染问题将进一步恶化。

根据环境保护署（ EPA）的推算，在美国，汽车每年平均产生超过273千克的空气污染。然而，中国的汽车环保标准低于美国以及大大低于欧洲的相关标准。最近的测试发现中国汽车的排放水平相当于美国六十年代后期和七十年代初的水平，这些汽车排放比西方国家目前使用的汽车的排放严重10-20倍。根据一项中美联合研究，北京40 ％的汽车和70 ％的的士不符合西方废气排放的最基本的标准。使问题更糟的是，作为增长最快的行业的中国的汽车市场是真正的大污染制造者——大排量的运动型多功能车（休旅车）及豪华车型。2007年，这些车辆的销售量上升了50 ％ ，相比于整个市场，增长了20 ％ 。这一趋势告诉我们关于中国的国内市场的很多方面：这个市场是偏向于相对富裕的少数阶层，而绝大多数人因为太穷而享受不了西式的消费。

汽车文化

中国从'自行车王国'转型为世界上第二大和增长最快的汽车市场展现了资本主义的破坏性的力量及其盲目追逐利润的本性。从环保的角度来看，中国——13亿人——复制西方资本主义模式的汽车大众化的疯狂性对任何人来说都是不言而喻的。汽车是全球温室气体的最大单一来源而它们现在在中国城市产生70 ％至80 ％的空气污染，根据一项2007年由世界银行和中国政府联合制作的报告，污染导致一年75万人失去生命。然而，同一个政府却张开双臂欢迎全球汽车巨人并且尽最大努力以确保中国继续沿着这条道路走去。近年来，由于他们在其他市场滞销而把希望寄托在中国市场的扩大上，这些公司已投入了巨额的款项。作为汽车市场的领导者的通用汽车，现在每年在中国销售超过100万辆车。大众汽车公司在中国比在德国销售更多的车。

在市、省和国家级的层面，这些公司和其他公司，如与汽车业命运相系的石油公司，与中国官员和与他们有联系的国有企业建立起了一种强有力的利益网。正如一位汽车行业的分析师提出， “中国政府打算建立一种汽车文化和发展汽车工业已不是什么秘密了。所有的力量一并发挥作用。”政府欢迎汽车公司，并把它作为投资、就业岗位和技术之源并相应地制定其政策。中国日报的评论道：“公路在这个国家纵横交错，古老的城市中心已经用推土机推平以便为造适宜汽车的道路腾出空间。”用于铁路的投资-铁路是目前为止最环保的大规模运输手段——在狂热的公路建设项目面前相形见拙。官方统计显示，在过去的5年里，建成了6500公里新铁路。但与此相比，仅2006年，建成4400公里新的六车道高速公路，2007年进一步，建成8300公里的高速公路。片面侧重于公路建设的原因之一是几乎所有的中国的高速公路都是收费道路，主要是在省级政府的合同下的私营公司出资建造。最近，甚至铁路在较小的规模上也正在向私人资本开放。至于收费道路的兴旺，在该国许多地方，政府已对这一进程失去控制。国家审计局调查了18个省份中的100条公路，发现158个非法收费站，至2005年年底，它们通过非法的收费总共已收集了149亿元（ 21亿美元）。

无怪乎汽车业经理们都笑容满面。中国的汽车市场的增长一直很壮观：在短短的六年里增长了300 ％ 。私家车的数目由2000年的600万上升到2007年的3240万。2001年成为世贸成员，通过降低进口关税和更广泛地向全球汽车巨人开放中国市场对此发展一直是至关重要的。美国，欧洲，日本和韩国公司现在占70 ％的中国汽车国内销售。2003-08之间增加了5倍的中国的汽车使用量的飙升本身对全球的石油价格有着重要的影响。现在中国是世界上第二大石油进口国而且其汽车消耗的石油占其进口石油过半。2000年，他们消耗6560万吨石油，2010年将增加一倍，至13800万吨石油，到2020年，将上升到25600万吨[2004年10月6日中国日报]。正如华盛顿邮报指出的， “汽车无餍的胃口是北京派出工程师和交易人从西伯利亚到安哥拉再到印尼寻找新的石油的原因之一。”现在，中国比美国从沙特阿拉伯购买更多的石油，也是在石油生产国伊朗和苏丹的最大的外国投资者。因此就地缘政治以及生态条件而言，中国'汽车文化'的到来正在重塑世界和为未来老帝国主义列强和崛起的中国之间的冲突搭建舞台。

空气污染和交通挤塞的影响是很惊人的，当然不只是在北京很严重。作为中国最富有的南部大都市的深圳市的市长如今呼吁人们停止购买汽车。2007年公开会议中他说道：“我虽然没有法定的权力要求你们必须这样做，但我还是要求大家不要购买汽车. ”北京的城市规划者也表现出了失望，中国人民政治协商会议（CPPCC）北京委员会成员之一的郑湘辉惊呼“交通问题的核心是北京道路建设增长速度跟不上车辆增长速度。车辆的数目一天之内可以增加上千辆，但我们在同样时间内不能建起一条新的道路。 “城市仅有140万辆规模的停车位，却有300多万辆车。

不仅是北京人民受其毒害，其交通现在的前行速度不到20世纪80年代的速度的一半——高峰期间1小时仅有11公里。中国日报为此事实哀叹道： “在交通高峰时间，北京的道路就像是一个巨大的停车场，人们抱怨说，骑自行车往往比开车快。”当2008年4月世界高级汽车经理们来到北京市参加北京车展，他们尝到了他们的公司创造的危害。首都离奇的交通全面阻塞把前往展览中心半小时车程变为两小时的蠕动。一些经理，如三菱汽车的Osamu Masuko和雷诺汽车的卡洛斯戈恩，选择走出他们的豪华轿车而在大雨中步行最后一公里的路。

然而，没有什么地方可以看到针对带有弊端的汽车大众化的替代方案。目前这不仅在中国而且在国际上都是个迫切之事。在要求洗清他们的行为的沉重的压力下，汽车公司本身提出的计划是要建造更多的石油和电'混合动力'的发动机和纯电动发动机，以及更多地使用生物燃料。不过，所有这些的发展是用来延续今天汽车使用大众化的系统而不是提供一个真正的替代选择。假如全球电力输出的66 ％仍然依赖化石燃料的话，即使是一个假设性的全电动汽车的'新时代'的到来也不会改善多少。而且，正如在中国，增长最快的电力之源也是全球最严重的环境破坏物：煤！同时生物燃料如乙醇已经被证明在资本主义生产方式下追逐利润的基础上是灾难性的。粮食作物现正转移至更有利可图的生物燃料的生产上，结果是在部分新殖民主义世界出现饥饿。而且对环境也无甚益处——乙醇取自一些作物，如棕榈油，它其实比汽油或柴油产生更多的温室气体。社会主义替代涉及民主控制和经济发展计划以及资源重定向以从其破坏性转向社会需要和环境上可持续的生产，而不是浪费和今天120家在中国的汽车公司之间的重复建设性的竞争，其中许多随着市场变得更小将不可避免地倒闭，资源和积累起来的劳工的技能应该汇集和引导到一个大规模扩展的安全的，廉价的和有效率的公共交通建设上去。

中国私家车猛增的主要原因是在大多数城市里缺乏有效率的公共运输系统。近年来的投资项目中该部门往往被忽视，钱被投入到工业园区及资产的发展上。北京的情况在整个国家中是最严重的。
乘上拥挤的巴士在该市走一遭是一种折磨，尤其是当其出现普遍存在的交通拥堵的情况时，这种拥堵意味着像包装起来的沙丁鱼那样站立着，长久地一动也不动。毫不奇怪，在2006年关于城市生活质量报告中，在交通满意上，北京得分在287个中国城市中是最低的。首都的地铁网络也是长期不能满足要求的。它只有带有83个站口的5条地铁线（第五号地铁线于2007年作为奥运前改善城市面貌的一部分而开通）以服务 1700万居民。有着820万人口的纽约有着备有468个站口的26条地铁线。而且纽约地铁每天运送乘客640万人次，而北京每天只运送220万人次。

交通专家告诉中国日报（ 2007年5月28日）说：“在纽约市，公共交通占整个交通流量的76 ％。东京是91％. 伦敦和巴黎分别是40％和70 ％ ，但在北京，它仍然只占29 ％ 。 ”即使计划扩大地铁系统——到2012增加六条新地铁线路——其也只增加北京居民可用的公共交通到45 ％左右。

作为扭转这一局面的一个重大的策略，北京官员大多是出于政治方面权宜之计而诉诸于一系列的治标措施以不惜一切代价避免奥运的失败。因此，种植树木，无车日，和人工下雨（发射火箭以产生大雨来清除空气污染物）这样的作法应因而生了 。如果这些方法都失败，中国官员有一个久经考验的解决方法以解决难题：统计造假！北京环境保护局被指责把监测点从空气质量欠佳的地区移到别处而且为了提高所谓的“蓝天“数而改变空气中成份以便在检测其污染时得到好的结果。

中国和全球变暖

联合国气候变化专门委员会已发出警告说，除非地球大气层中的温室气体量在未来八年渐趋稳定，气温升高至'灾难性'的水平将是不可避免的。然而，基于对大量增加的矿物燃料消费来给其巨大的浪费的产业和拥堵的交通提供动力，中国已超越美国成为世界上最大的污染者'和气候变化的主要驱动力。

中国比其他任何国家遭受了更多的自然灾害并且由于人口增长，城市化，荒漠化和并非不重要的气候变化的影响，它们的发生频率正在上升。极地冰盖萎缩被公认为是对气候的一大威胁而导致较高的全球气温和海平面上升。被称为世界'第三极'的青藏高原的冰川也在以惊人的7 ％左右的速度萎缩着。新华社的一份报告警告说：“冰川融化最终会引发更多的干旱，荒漠化的扩大和沙尘暴的增加。”冰川收缩是导致中国西部山区数以千计的湖泊消失的原因，而现在沙漠占该国领土的27.6 ％，其中大部分在北部和西北地区。在这些非汉族人民集中的地区的环境退化和耕地的丧失是推动种族关系紧张并要求更大的自治或独立的一个因素。

在中国南方，其影响适得其反： 1 季风暴雨，严重水灾和热带风暴的增加。每年数以千万计的人受水灾的影响。 2008年6月在很多省份包括安徽，广东，湖南等省区发生了50年来最严重的降雨。国家海洋局的报告已警告说，如果海洋继续上升，沿海大城市如上海和广州，会遇到“无法想象的挑战”。科学家警告说，到2050年上海可能会被淹没掉。2007年春季，中国政权公布关于气候变化的首次国家评估报告，预测在中国北部的七大河流之三——淮河，辽河，海河流域——的地区降雨量急剧下降30 ％ 。反过来，由于更高的温度，这将导致小麦，大米和玉米产量在本世纪下半叶减产37 ％。中国粮食自给自足的能力已经不足，在这样的假设下将面临完全崩溃的局面。

全球性的后果也将是毁灭性的。如果目前的趋势继续下去，科学家警告，中国产生的温室气体的增加量将数倍于老工业化国家正在按照——完全不充分的——京都议定书削减的排放量。中国未来五年内增加的排放量定为约23亿吨，使得37个富裕国家在京都议定书下强制削减的17亿吨相形见拙

社会主义者一贯认为，资本主义'解决方案' ，如京都议定书无法阻止全球变暖。这是因为他们是根据'自由市场'的机制运作的，该机制常常导致协定形同虚设而且往往导向欺诈性的排放权的交易。他们被在资本主义——一个残酷竞争的制度，在该制度下，每个政府旨在为自己的公司谋取最大利益——的基础上无可避免的暗斗所困扰。在欧洲和美国的政府要求下，中国和其他新兴工业化国家接受了更严格的限制二氧化碳排放量的要求，这已被一些亚洲国家政府称为'绿色帝国主义' 。这一指控不是完全没有道理的。富裕的资本主义国家的伪善的政府知道没有任何限制——自己的公司是许多中国的污染问题背后之源。绿色和平组织英国领导人约翰舒文解释说： “对中国的排放量飙升负责的不只是北京，而且包括华盛顿，布鲁塞尔和东京。”并把矛头指向西方产业大规模的迁移。他说：“所有我们所做的就是出口西方的碳产物之很大的份额到中国，今天我们看到了后果。”

浪费资源的产业

近十年来中国经济年增长率10 ％ 。不过，这是带有人力资源和自然资源的巨大成本的。正如环保总局第二把手的潘岳指出的， “我们正在使用太多的原料以维持这方面的增长。例如生产价值一万美元的货物，我们需要用去比日本7倍多的资源，美国的近6倍以及或许最令人惭愧的是比印度都要高出近3倍 “ 。 [2005年3月7日周刊] 例如，中国的钢铁行业消耗了该国电力的16 ％，相比之下，所有中国的家庭的耗电总量也只有10 ％ 。中国发电厂的主要燃料是煤炭——占76 ％——这导致酸雨，烟雾，呼吸系统疾病，当然包括全球气候变暖。每星期有一家新的燃煤发电厂在中国的某个地方建立起来。鉴于它是世界上最大的煤炭生产国，估计煤储量为55000亿吨，这种趋势肯定将继续下去。

中国工业和农业亦导致巨大的水资源浪费，生产一单位的国内生产总值需要消耗比日本高出10倍以上的水或者比韩国高出6倍以上的水。该国迅速步入水供应的严重关头。主要的水专家马军警告说，中国东北地区几个城市，包括北京，从现在开始五至七年内可能用尽水资源。新华通讯社预测，北京将在2010年达到危机点，那时其人口将超过其供水能力约300万人。正在扩大的戈壁沙漠和北京相距只不过220公里——甚至再次开始讨论关于迁都的事。在奥运会期间，短期内的'修正'是从邻近省份，如河北和山西抽取最优质的水到北京。据估计，为了奥运游客，将用这些省份的3亿立方米的水来冲洗北京市中心的污染和淤滞的河流和湖泊。这项政策遭到了'捐助'的省份的批评是可以理解的。山西省的前共产党的头头齐远（音译）抗议说：“为了维护北京的水质，我们要关闭所有我们的工厂，但我们仍然需要生活，所以我说，政府有必要补偿山西”。

显然，中国的一党专政的政权是没有能力挽回该国——和整个地球与它一起——奔向生态灾难的境地。只有从目前的精英，资本家和未经选举产生的国家官员手里剥夺工业生产控制权并通过全民制订一套环境上可持续的经济发展的民主社会主义计划，才能改变目前的灾难性的趋势。
The Green Olympics?

Beijing is one of the most polluted cities in the world

Vincent Kolo and Chen Lizhi, chinaworker.info

The Beijing Olympic Games have been billed as the 'Green Olympics'. This slogan was used by the Chinese regime in its successful bid for the games in 2001, and was backed up by ambitious commitments to improve air and water quality in the Chinese capital. But this was always going to be a tall order. Beijing is one of the most polluted cities in the world. Rather than tackling the real problems, Chinese officials have opted for a number of short-term and largely cosmetic measures that will mostly only last for the duration of the games. This use of temporary expedients – "smog and mirrors" in the words of one blogger – is characteristic of the Chinese regime. China faces the most terrifying ecological crisis in the world. There are no parallels in peacetime for such monumental degradation of a country's natural resources, water and land.

Despite spending almost $17 billion on environmental improvements for the Olympic Games, Beijing's non-stop construction boom and exploding car usage have largely thwarted government efforts to improve air quality. During the period of the Olympics 1.5 million cars will be ordered off the city's roads in order to thin out the level of airborne toxins. Millions of trees have been planted for the Olympics, especially in the vicinity of the capital's international airport to greet new arrivals. But environmentalists are divided over the benefits of this, given the additional strain it places on Beijing's scarce water resources. Nearly 200 steel, cement, chemical and other factories have been closed or relocated outside city boundaries. But as the website Wired commented, "Neighboring cities cheerfully rolled out the welcome mat for the capital's filthiest factories, then spewed record amounts of coal smoke into the region's skies to keep them humming." Up to 70 percent of Beijing's atmospheric pollution comes from surrounding provinces – just one example of how the city's Olympic face-lift has been sabotaged by processes in the wider economy. "Extensive use of coal, the city's geographical location and a growing number of motor vehicles means the pace of improvement in Beijing's air quality is slow," concluded a report from the United Nations Environment Program. This report found that in 2006 the average level of small particulate matter, a major health hazard, in Beijing's air was eight times higher than World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines. Other types of air pollution – sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide – rose or failed to improve during 2006 following three years of declines.

Health concerns led Haile Gebrselassie, the men's marathon world record-holder, who is asthmatic, to pull out of that event, although he still intended to compete in the 10,000 metres in Beijing. "The pollution in China is a threat to my health and it would be difficult for me to run 42 km in my current condition," he announced. The US Olympic team announced it would bring 1,000 specially designed air pollution masks to Beijing. In their new attire the team looked like "a gathering of Darth Vaders", according to one US athlete. Yet Beijing's 17 million inhabitants must breath this air every day, not just during a three-week international competition. While other infamously polluted metropolises like Mexico City and Los Angeles have an average air pollution index of 66 and 44 respectively, Beijing has sometimes recorded figures above 300, at which point the air becomes 'hazardous'. For a child exposed to this level of airborne toxins, it is equivalent to smoking 40 cigarettes a day! Research by Peking University environmental science professors calculated that particulate pollution caused 25,000 deaths in Beijing in 2002 alone, and the loss of 7.2 percent of the city's GDP. According to a 2006 survey of the 84 major cities in China by the State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), Beijing had the fewest number of days attaining the national air quality standard – and its air quality was even worse in 2007.

A third of the city's particulate dust comes from roughly 3,000 construction sites, which work around the clock in Chinese cities. The low-paid migrant workers who work on and in many cases also live on these sites are not provided with Olympic-style gas masks. An even bigger threat to air quality is presented by Beijing's growing car pool, which will number 3.3 million by the time of the Olympics. More than a thousand new cars roll onto the city's roads every day. When car ownership broke through the 3 million mark in 2007, Beijing's mayor, Wang Qishan, said this symbolised the city's "prosperous and fast development". But respondents in a Sina.com survey took another view, with 55 percent saying it was 'bad news' and 31 percent fearing the city's pollution problems would get worse.

The average car in the United States causes over 273 kilograms of air pollution annually according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Yet environmental standards for car engines in China are lower than in the US and considerably lower than those in Europe. Recent tests found emission levels of Chinese cars to be on a par with cars used in the US in the late 1960s and early 1970s; these cars emit 10-20 times more pollution than cars currently used in Western countries. According a joint Chinese-US study, 40 percent of cars and 70 percent of taxis in Beijing fail to meet the most basic Western emission standards. To make matters worse, the fastest growing segment of the Chinese car market is for the really big polluters – fuel-guzzling sports utility vehicles (SUVs) and luxury models. Sales of these vehicles rose by 50 percent in 2007, compared to overall market growth of 20 percent. This trend tells us a lot about China's domestic market: it is skewed towards a small relatively affluent minority, while the vast majority are too poor to engage in western style consumerism.

Car culture

China's transformation from 'bicycle kingdom' into the world's second-biggest and fastest-growing vehicle market shows the destructive power of capitalism and its blind chase for profits. The sheer insanity from an environmental perspective of reproducing the western capitalist model of mass car ownership in China – with 1.3 billion people – should be obvious to anyone. Motor vehicles are the single biggest source of greenhouse gases worldwide and they now cause between 70 to 80 percent of air pollution in Chinese cities, pollution that claims 750,000 lives a year according to a 2007 report produced jointly by the World Bank and the Chinese government. Yet the global motor giants, welcomed with open arms by the same government, are doing their utmost to insure that China continues along this road. These companies have invested huge sums in recent years as they pin their hopes on China to offset sluggish or falling sales in other markets. The market leader, General Motors, now sells over a million cars annually in China. Volkswagen sells more cars in China than in Germany.

These companies and others such as oil companies whose fate is tied to automobile production, have built up a powerful web of interests with Chinese officials at city, provincial and national level, and with the state-owned companies linked to them. As one car industry analyst put it, "The Chinese government has made no secret of its intention to develop a car culture and a car industry. All of the forces are working together." The government welcomes car companies as a source of investment, jobs and technology, and its policies have been designed accordingly. "Highways crisscross the country, and ancient city centers have been bulldozed to make way for car-friendly avenues," China Daily commented. Investment in railways, by far the most environmentally friendly means of mass transportation, has been dwarfed by a frenetic road-building programme. Official statistics show that 6,500 km of new railways were built in the last five years. But this compares to 4,400 km of new six-lane expressways built in 2006 alone, and a further 8,300 km of expressways in 2007. One of the reasons for this lopsided emphasis on road-building is that almost all China's expressways are toll roads, mainly financed by private companies under contract to provincial governments. More recently even the railways are being opened to private capital, but on a much smaller scale. As for the boom in toll roads, in many parts of the country local governments have lost control of this process. The National Audit Office investigated 100 roads in 18 provinces and discovered that 158 illegal toll stations had been erected, which together had collected in 14.9 billion yuan ($2.1 billion) in unlawful charges by the end of 2005.

No wonder motor industry executives are all smiles. The growth of China's vehicle market has been spectacular: 300 percent in just six years. The number of private cars rose from six million in the year 2000, to 32.4 million in 2007. WTO membership since 2001 has been crucial to this development, by lowering import tariffs and opening China more extensively to the global car giants. US, European, Japanese and Korean companies now account for 70 percent of domestic sales. China's soaring car usage is itself a significant influence on the global price of oil, which increased five-fold between 2003-08. China is the world's second largest oil importer and motor vehicles now consume over half its imported oil. They consumed 65.6 million tons of oil in the year 2000, which by the year 2010 will have doubled to 138 million tons of oil annually, rising to 256 million tons by 2020. [China Daily, 6 October 2004] As the Washington Post pointed out, "the ravenous appetite of the automobile is one reason Beijing has dispatched engineers and deal makers from Siberia to Angola to Indonesia in search of new oil." China now buys more oil from Saudi Arabia than the US does, and is the biggest foreign investor in oil producers Iran and Sudan. In geopolitical as well as ecological terms, therefore, the advent of 'car culture' in China is reshaping the world and setting the stage for future clashes between the older imperialist powers and a rising China.

The effects in terms of air pollution and traffic congestion are simply staggering and not just in Beijing of course. The mayor of the southern metropolis of Shenzhen, China's richest city, actually appealed to its people to stop buying cars. "Although I have no legal power to do this, I am asking everyone not to buy cars," he told a public meeting in July 2007. Beijing's city planners have also expressed frustration: "The core of the traffic problem in Beijing is that the growth in road construction is out of step with the increase in vehicles. The number of vehicles can increase by the thousands on just one day but we cannot build a new road in the same time," exclaimed Cheng Xianghui, a member of the Beijing Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC). The city only has parking space for 1.4 million of its more than 3 million cars.

Not only are the people of Beijing being poisoned; its traffic now moves at less than half the speed it did in the 1980s – just 11 kilometres an hour during peak periods. China Daily bemoaned the fact that, "Beijing's roads are like an enormous parking lot at rush hour. People complain that riding a bicycle is often faster than driving a car." When the world's top motor executives came to the city in April 2008 for the Beijing Auto Show they got a taste of the mayhem their companies have created. The capital's legendary gridlock turned what is normally a half-hour ride to the exhibition centre into a two-hour crawl. Some of the executives, Osamu Masuko of Mitsubishi Motors and Carlos Ghosn of Renault among them, opted to get out of their limousines in heavy rain and walk the last mile of the way.

Yet an alternative to mass car ownership with all its attendant ills is nowhere to be seen. This is now urgent not just in China but internationally. Under heavy pressure to clean-up their act, motor companies themselves are bringing forward plans for more petroleum-electric 'hybrid' engines and pure electric engines, as well as greater use of biofuels. All these developments, however, are designed to perpetuate today's system of mass car usage rather than offer a real alternative. Even a hypothetical 'new epoch' of wholly electric cars would not improve ´the overall picture given that fossil fuels still account for 66 percent of global electricity output. And, as in China, the fastest growing source of electricity worldwide is also the worst environmental offender: coal! Meanwhile biofuels such as ethanol are proving to be disaster on the basis of the capitalist mode of production for profit. Food crops are being displaced by more profitable biofuel production and the result is starvation in some parts of the neo-colonial world. Neither does this spare the environment – ethanol made from some crops such as palm oil actually produces more greenhouse gases than petrol or diesel. The socialist alternative involves democratic control and planning of economic development and the redirection of resources from destructive to socially necessary and environmentally sustainable production. Instead of today's wasteful and duplicative competition among 120 China-based car companies, many of which will inevitably close down as the market becomes more concentrated, the resources and accumulated labour skills of this industry should be pooled and channeled into a massive expansion of safe, cheap and efficient public transport.

The main cause of exploding car ownership in China is the lack of efficient public transport systems in most cities. This sector has largely missed out on the massive investment programmes of recent years, while money has been ploughed into industrial parks and property development. The situation in Beijing is among the worst in the country. A trip through the city on one of its many overcrowded buses is an ordeal, especially when its ubiquitous traffic jams mean standing, packed like sardines, for ages without moving. Not surprisingly, Beijing scored near the bottom of a survey of 287 Chinese cities in the category of transport satisfaction in a 2006 Report on the Quality of Urban Life. The capital's subway train network is also chronically under-dimensioned. It has just five subway lines with 83 stations (the fifth subway line was opened in 2007 as part of the city's pre-Olympic makeover) to service 17 million inhabitants. New York, with a population of 8.2 million, has 26 subway lines and 468 stations. While the New York subway transports 6.4 million passengers daily, Beijing only manages 2.2 million.

"In New York City, public transport shares 76 percent of the total traffic flow. The number is 91, 40 and 70 percent in Tokyo, London and Paris, respectively. But in Beijing it's still 29 percent," a transport expert told China Daily (28 May 2007). Even the planned expansion of the subway system – adding six new lines by 2012 – will still only raise the proportion of Beijing residents using public transport to 45 percent.

In place of a serious strategy to turn this situation around, officials in Beijing have resorted to a series of stopgap measures mostly for reasons of political expedience, to avoid at all costs an Olympic fiasco. Hence all the tree-planting, the car-free days, and the 'cloud-seeding' (shooting up rockets to cause rain that flushes out air pollutants). And if all else fails, Chinese officials have a tried and tested method for resolving difficult problems: fiddling the statistics! The Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau has been accused of removing monitoring sites from areas with poor air quality and changing the basis upon which air pollution is measured in order to boost the number of so-called 'blue sky days'.


China and global warming

The United Nations' panel on climate change has issued warnings that unless the amount of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere are stabilised in the next eight years, a rise in temperatures to 'disastrous' levels will be unavoidable. Yet, based on massively increased consumption of fossil fuels to power its hugely wasteful industries and traffic jams, China has overtaken the United States to become the world's 'biggest polluter' and main driver of climate change.

China already suffers more natural disasters than any other country and their frequency is rising as a result of population growth, urbanization, desertification and not least, climate change. The shrinking of the polar ice caps is recognised as a major climate threat leading to higher global temperatures and rising sea levels. But the glaciers on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, known as the world's 'third pole', are also shrinking at the alarming rate of seven percent a year. "The melting glacier will ultimately trigger more droughts, expand desertification and increase sandstorms," warned a report in Xinhua. Glacial retreat is responsible for the disappearance of thousands of lakes in mountainous regions of western China, while desert now accounts for 27.6 percent of the country's territory, mostly in northern and northwestern regions. Environmental degradation and loss of farmland in these regions, with their concentration of non-Han peoples, is one factor fueling ethnic tensions and demands for greater autonomy or independence.

In southern China however the effects will be the opposite: an increase in monsoon rains, severe floods and tropical storms. Tens of millions of people are effected by flooding every year. June 2008 saw the heaviest rainfall for 50 years in provinces including Anhui, Guangdong and Hunan. A report from the State Oceanic Administration has warned that coastal metropolises such as Shanghai and Guangzhou will encounter 'unimaginable challenges' if the oceans keep rising. Scientists warn that Shanghai could be submerged by 2050. In the Spring of 2007, the Chinese regime released its first national assessment report on climate change, predicting a fall in precipitation of 30 percent in three of China's seven major river regions – around the Huai, Liao, and Hai rivers – in northern China. This in turn would lead to a 37 percent reduction in wheat, rice and corn yields in the second half of the century due to higher temperatures. China's ability to feed itself, already under strain, faces complete breakdown on the basis of such a scenario.

The global fallout will also be devastating. If current trends continue, scientists warn, China's increased production of greenhouse gases will be several times larger than the cuts in emissions being made by older industrialised nations under the – wholly inadequate – Kyoto Protocol. China's emissions are set to increase by about 2.3 billion tonnes over the next five years, dwarfing the 1.7 billion tonnes in cutbacks imposed on 37 rich countries, including the United States, under Kyoto rules.

Socialists have consistently argued that capitalist 'solutions' such as Kyoto are incapable of stopping global warming. This is because they are based upon 'free market' mechanisms such as the ineffectual and often fraudulent trade in emission rights. They are also dogged by governmental infighting which is inevitable on the basis of capitalism – a system of cutthroat rivalry in which each government seeks advantages for its own companies. Demands from governments in Europe and America that China and other newly industrialising nations accept tougher limits on carbon emissions have been attacked by some Asian governments as 'green imperialism'. There is some truth to this accusation. The hypocrisy of governments in the rich capitalist states knows no limits – their own companies are behind much of China's pollution. "Responsibility for China's soaring emissions lies not just in Beijing but also in Washington, Brussels and Tokyo," explained Greenpeace UK director John Sauven, pointing to the mass relocation of Western industry. "All we've done is export a great slice of the West's carbon footprint to China, and today we see the result," he said.

Wasteful industry

The Chinese economy has grown at an annual rate of ten percent for almost a decade. But this has been achieved at a colossal cost in terms of human and natural resources. As Pan Yue, SEPA's second in command pointed out, "We are using too many raw materials to sustain this growth. To produce goods worth $10,000, for example, we need seven times more resources than Japan, nearly six times more than the United States and, perhaps most embarrassing, nearly three times more than India." [Spiegel, 7 March 2005] China's steel industry, for example, consumes 16 percent of the country's electrical power, compared to 10 percent for all China's households put together. The main fuel for Chinese power plants is coal – 76 percent of the total – which causes acid rain, smog, respiratory diseases and of course global warming. Every week a new coal-fired power station comes into service somewhere in China. Given that it is the world's biggest coal producer, with estimated reserves of 5.5 trillion tons, this trend is set to continue.

Chinese industry and agriculture is also hugely wasteful of water, requiring ten times more water than Japan and six times more than South Korea to produce one unit of gross domestic product. The country is rapidly approaching crunch time for water supplies. Ma Jun, a leading water expert, warns that several cities in the northeast of China, including Beijing, could run out of water in five to seven years from now. The Xinhua news agency predicts that Beijing will reach crisis point in 2010, when its population will outstrip its water supplies by around three million people. The Gobi desert, which is advancing, is just 220 km from Beijing – there have even been discussions about moving the Chinese capital. Again, a short-term 'fix' will be applied during the Olympics by pumping the best quality water from neighbouring provinces such as Hebei and Shaanxi. An estimated 300 million cubic metres of water from these provinces will be used to flush out polluted and stagnant rivers and lakes in central Beijing for the benefit of Olympic tourists. This policy has understandably drawn criticism from the 'donor' provinces. "In order to preserve the quality of Beijing's water we have to close all our factories. But we still need to live. So I say the government needs to compensate Shaanxi," protested the former Communist party boss of Shaanxi province, An Qiyuan.

Clearly, China's one-party regime is incapable of arresting the country's – and with it the whole planet's – headlong rush towards ecological disaster. Only by wresting control of industrial production from the present elite of capitalists and unelected state officials, and involving the entire population in drawing up a democratic socialist plan for environmentally sustainable economic development can the present disastrous course be changed.