One Dream, One China?

Peter Yeldham analyses the nexus between the Olympic Games and human rights in China.

The Debate Inflaming the Olympics

Despite superb logistical and outstanding event organisation, the Beijing Olympics is in trouble. Stephen Spielberg has withdrawn, on moral grounds, as artistic director for the opening ceremony of the games. And the Chinese authorities’ tight grip on national media has ensured that most Chinese citizens have not found out.

The one newspaper that carried the story, the Global Times, noted that Western exploitation of the Olympics to pressure China, immediately provoked much disgust among ordinary Chinese people.” As the Olympics draw closer, expect the robust crackdown on dissent to continue.

Almost a decade after its failure to win the 2000 Olympic Games, largely because of concerns over China’s human rights record and fresh memories of Tiananmen Square, Beijing was awarded the 2008 Olympics. The Chinese authorities promised to advance China’s social agenda, including human rights standards, and acknowledged that protests would be inevitable.

If the protests that have plagued the torch relay thus far are any indication of what is to follow, it is evident that this pledge has not been well received by the wider global community. The Beijing Games have already been dubbed the ‘Genocide Olympics’ or the ‘Saffron Olympics’ by media outlets and civil rights watchdogs around the world.

Moises Naim, Editor-in-Chief of Foreign Policy, suggests that “the clashes outside the stadiums are likely to be more intense and spectacular than the sports competitions taking place on the inside.” Thus, opposition in and outside of China is the greatest hurdle facing the Beijing Organising Committee , who must now find the best way to respond to it.

Should the Olympic Games be the Focus of Political Debate?

Australian swimming hero, Susie O’Neil, recently pondered, “I just get a little bit angry when people use the Olympics as their protesting forum. It is so removed from politics, so why do they use that?” As talented as Madame Butterfly may have been in the water, she clearly flounders in the world of political reality.

Her statement ignores the fact that every host nation uses the Olympics for political purposes. Moreover, the history of the modern Olympic Games is littered with examples of host countries, competing nations, terrorist groups and athletes, using the Olympics as an opportunity to pursue their own political agenda.

The emerging story of the Olympic torch relay as a Nazi propaganda tool is one such example. So is the banning of South Africa from the 1964 Tokyo games, and the boycott of the Moscow and Los Angeles games. But these are by no means the only instances.

There is something about the Olympics which makes it a more attractive political platform than any other sporting event. It may relate to the patriotic support which follows most teams. Success is perceived not just as a measure of sporting prowess, but as an affirmation of the balance of power.

For example, during the Cold War the battle for supremacy on the medals table was perceived as a reflection of the battle between the two superpowers (assuming both countries showed up). While the Soccer World Cup is generally won by a team with a rare combination of technical precision, vision and flair (skills which cannot be bought), the Olympic medal table is routinely dominated by the world’s most powerful nations.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has always perceived its primary duty as the maintenance of sporting excellence as a universal aspiration. As such, the Olympic Charter – the governing document of the IOC which sets out the principles and values of Olympism – is largely devoid of political language.

But the IOC President, Jacques Rogge, has publicly asked China to “respect the moral engagement” they made during their bid. The Chinese government has responded by asserting that the IOC should defend its commitment in the Olympic Charter to avoid “bringing in any irrelevant political factors.”

This is a shallow defence. The host country has always had an inherently political outlook. Chinese leaders sought the games as a way of legitimising their rule. Moreover, the IOC has never been that far removed from international relations. Even the governing law of the Olympics has been called upon as a means of venturing into international relations. The applications of East Germany and Taiwan to compete at the games posed such a challenge.

Was it a Mistake to Award Beijing the Olympics?

The hope was that the Olympics would do for China what they did for South Korea in 1988, when the country was run by a military dictatorship with an unpalatable human rights record. Since 1988, South Korea has flourished into a democracy and has noticeably improved relations with the global community.

Two strong arguments were made to support the awarding of the games to China. First, it was expected that awarding the games to Beijing would significantly reduce the chance of war across the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan in fact supported the Chinese Olympic bid. Second, it was hoped that it would increase the likelihood of substantive Chinese engagement with the West.

These reasons are sound. China’s membership of the WTO and its willingness to receive foreign dignitaries and open its markets to the West, have been of significant benefit.

But the true test of whether it was appropriate to award the games to Beijing is China’s commitment to respect human rights. Despite China having been dropped from the U.S. State Department’s list of the world’s ten worst human-rights violators, there is little evidence to suggest that human rights have improved since 2001.

The denial of religious freedom and the suppression of civil and political freedoms are of particular concern to human rights monitors. If not a mistake, it was recklessly quixotic of the IOC to think that the games would make a significant difference to the social agenda in China. Instead of helping to reform China’s social agenda, the lead-up to the games has provided a seven-year period where the Chinese leadership has simply practiced repression in quieter ways.

What the Olympics will do for China

Beijing’s proclaimed Olympic goals include enhancing China’s image as an open, civilised and harmonious country. China’s engagement with the issue of air pollution is commendable. Although a solution has been hard to find, the new-found willingness to tackle the problem is encouraging. With a new airport, revamped transport system and a plethora of quality venues, there are also certainly some benefits for the citizens of Beijing.

If the media focuses only on the sporting carnival, the image of China sent around the world will be of a civilised, well-planned and harmonious country. Particularly if national teams follow the example of the British Olympic Association, which earlier this year asked its athletes to sign contracts prohibiting them from protesting at the Olympics.

The Olympics continues to be an attractive marketing opportunity for some of the world’s largest companies. President George W. Bush, who has accepted his invitation to the opening ceremony, has consistently argued that trade is the best way to bring about human rights reform in China. The U.S. President has asserted that trade inherently brings greater personal and political freedoms.

Susan Ariel observed in World Policy Journal that Bush has elevated and simplified the trade-human rights relationship, by insisting that when American companies engage in sponsorship of the Olympics or ship goods to China, they are functionally “exporting freedom.” While some might accept this view, most serious observers know that promoting human rights requires considerable expertise in governance. It is probably fair to conclude that the ubiquitous display of the ‘Golden Arches’ will not bring much comfort to the people of Tibet.

If the battles outside the stadiums are as intense as projected, it is the protests that will be the lasting image of the games. Citizen journalism poses a considerable challenge for the organisers of the games. Even the most effective, centralised police force will struggle to stop a horde of protesters with blackberries and camera phones from sending eyewitness observations of the interaction between the authorities and activists around the world. Moreover, if the mainstream media is given a wide berth, citizen journalism will only increase.

The world, and China’s place in it, has changed significantly since the turn of the century. As one author suggests, this has made “the challenge for an authoritarian regime hosting the world games far greater than it might have imagined.”

Regardless of the mistakes of the past, Beijing is prepared to host what will be the most expensive and expansive games ever. If protests occur and the media is allowed a free reign, the celebration which was to mark China’s peaceful emergence as an affable global power is likely to instead lead to great discomfort for both the IOC and the Chinese government.

Peter Yeldham is in his third year of a Graduate Law degree. He has completed a Bachelor of Arts, majoring in History and Government and International Relations.