For months, scratch that, for years I’ve been thinking that China’s vision of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing is just completely out of whack with the reality of the event.
Seeing large city squares be constructed, buildings erected, national pride stoked, all in preparation for Er Ling Ling Ba – the year of China’s Olympics – misled me into thinking that the folks at Zhongnanhai were putting far too much weight and importance on what essentially amounts to a couple weeks of sports meets.
I was wrong.
Additionally, I have long held the belief that September 2008 will go down in history as the month that a full 1/5 of the world suffered from mass disillusionment all at once as the realization sunk in that the Beijing Olympic Games were <strong>not</strong> the be-all-end-all answer to every problem faced in China.
Again, I was wrong.
Chinese people know that the Olympics aren’t going to solve the problems the country faces as a nation struggling to climb out of mass poverty and a rough and turbulent recent history. In fact, I’m beginning to see that perhaps China’s the only country making the news that still understands that the Olympics are just a game.
That every [*hr*] NGO, ex-Olympian and Hollywood socialite from here to Darfur is calling upon a boycott of the Beijing Olympics shows that most the rest of the world seems to have forgotten this.
Yesterday British badminton champ Richard Vaughan called on Beijing to put pressure on Khartoum to end the violence in Darfur, and then today Steven Spielberg announced his resignation as a “foreign artistic consultant” for the Games. They join the outspoken Mia Farrow as folks that feel that the Olympic Games should be used as a bargaining chip to bully in agendas outside the scope of the Games themselves.
There’s a reason the International Olympic Committee (IOC) recently reminded athletes that they can’t use the Olympics as a soapbox for expressing their political views – it goes against the fundamental principle of what the Olympics is about. The IOC’s Code of Ethics states:
The Olympic parties shall work to maintain harmonious relations with state authorities, in accordance with the principle of universality and political neutrality of the Olympic Movement.
This isn’t a “gag order” as the media seems to love calling it, this is about upholding one of the defining principles of the Olympic Games – neutrality.
It’s important to differentiate a rule that maintains the integrity of the event from the concept of silencing people and killing free speech. The Olympics work exactly because for two weeks every couple years they ask all countries to put aside their differences, their problems, their wars, strife, poverty and politics and just play the game.
Whether China should be doing more in the Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur is an excellent and relevant question – but not one that should be raised in relation to the Olympics. Tying it to such, though effective in getting headlines, does little in the way of practical and positive results.
Sure it continues to bolster support amongst Farrow’s followers (preaching and choirs anyone?), but even if half the liberal population of the US publicly denounced the Beijing Olympics because of the Asian nation’s sketchy financial relations with the Sudan, it’s not going to amount to even an iota of additional assistance from China in Darfur.
What kind of self-righteous pharisaic individual believes it would?
Simply put, the 2008 Beijing Olympics are not being held in Khartoum, they are being held in Beijing – and thank god for that, imagine the number of posters that would need changing, never mind the Fuwa doll recalls. Calling for a boycott on the Olympics in a country simply because of its relations with a completely sovereign and separate nation, and then further, dubbing that Olympics as the “Genocide Olympics” is rabble rousing at its most incendiary and sickening level.
And, much the reverse of international media conglomerates, Beijing seems to be maintaining some amount of perspective on this. They understand crying Westerners threatening to not attend the Olympics has little or nothing to do with (A) what the Games mean to their country, (B) their continuing relationship with Khartoum, and (C) well, anything at all.
This sanctimonious sanctioning that doesn’t see eye-to-eye with American ideals is very 20th Century, and simply does not work. I think it’s time we find a new way to converse.
Yes I strongly believe that punishing a country will put it on the right track. I do believe that China is working, although at a very slow pace, with the Sudanese government in solving the Human Rights issue in Sudan. It is of China’s interests that it establishes relationships with countries that do not have a lot of problem.
Indeed, British newspapers seem to be getting feverishly self-righteous about all this, and I’ve even read one hastily dashed-off ‘article’ about how the Chinese government is silent on Spielberg’s snub…
Well of course they’re quiet about it! Losing face is the worst possible thing for them, so even if they give a toss about Spielberg dropping out (and probably they couldn’t give a fuck), they’re not gonna say; while people in China won’t even know what’s going on bcoz this isn’t even gonna be reported here. So what have all the wailings and withdrawals of support achieved? Nothing… Well done, Farrow, Spielberg, UK athletes *slow hand clapping*
And, as this blog post says in the first place… It’s just a sports meet anyway!
We will see whether this Spielberg move is a big deal for China or not by watching whether this piece of information appears in state controlled media in China.
Let the games begin.
That’s just it Ben, it’s not a big deal. It may not appear in the newspapers – or if it does, it’ll most certainly have a rah-rah-rah slant, but for exactly the reason Steven mentioned – not because the CPC members are sitting around a big table in crisis mode sweating about the loss of the great Spielberg.
Life goes on, the Games go on, and trade with the Sudan goes on.
Yes Stephen, re British press – as per bloody usual.
Been increasingly bothered by this myself Ryan, glad you wrote this. Interesting that the “snub club” seems to have no sense of their own hypocrisy either.
Pingback: The sport vs politics conundrum - Countdown to Beijing
Well put. Reading through this got me thinking about the athletes in all of this. They train their whole lives to get this one shot. And if the politicizing of these games continues like this, these athletes are going to have to face the Jesse Owens’ syndrom. No one remembers the fact that the black American sprinter absolutely demolished the competition in Germany. All people remember of this guy is the fact that he didn’t get props from Hitler. Probably not the way the athletes competeing here in Beijing want to be remembered. So after these games this summer, is gold metal winner X going to go back to his or her home country and have to hear ‘So, you won that metal at the blood Olympics, huh.’ I really hope not, for their sake.
Believing in personal freedom, I think it fine if some people choose not to participate in the games out of protest. I sure wouldn’t go to a restaurant if the chef had slept with my wife, regardless of the quality of the food.
But if I had the opportunity to be in the 2008 Olympics (instead of being a stocky slow Irishman) I’d participate. As you suggest, I don’t feel strongly that my lack of participation would enact any change in China’s policies.
When I read articles criticizing Spielburg or the boycott movement, it’s always written in the view that boycotting the olympics won’t affect the Sudan situation. In all likelyhood, that’s absolutely right, it’s a futile effort. But what is never addressed is the morality of the boycott, the reasoning behind it. If every protest, movement, statement, boycott, etc. were to be judged and carried out only by evaluating its effects, then a WHOLE lot of them would simply not have taken place. If Keating’s wife was raped by the chef of the restaurant, he definitely wouldn’t dine there. Would his boycotting of the restaurant have any effect on its profits/business? Not likely. But that’s not the point.
Also, I disagree with the whole “neutrality” of the olympics, the olympic spirit, and all that. The olympics ARE political, they ARE a soapbox. And here’s hoping for a whole bunch of egg on the CCP’s face in 2008. Screw political neutrality, people are dying.
@Chip, I don’t disagree regarding letting the effects of a movement determine whether that movement is attempted in the first place. Lord knows I’ve been at enough protests to hold anything but that view.
My point, point of the post, is not the lack of effect it will have, but rather the misplacement. China is NOT causing genocide in the Sudan. The tribal warfare is. Blaming China is a can of worms that any American should hesitate to open.
There’s some excellent commentary going on at Imagethief’s blog about this.
See your first point. They may be, but that doesn’t mean they should be.
Ryan,
I think the boycott movement is formed by people who want SOMETHING to bash China for, and the Sudan situation just happens to be modern enough to be put into play. If Sudan weren’t happening, there would probably be protests about phaLG, or tibet, or whatever. And obviously China is not causing what’s happening in Sudan, but they ARE supplying the weapons and the cash, and do have significant influence in Sudan. And despite China’s persistant stance of staying out of other countries affairs, they have been seen occasionally to disregard that (they eventually used their leverage on North Korea to get some negotiations). China is sitting idly on the sideline of a huge disaster, and as a profiteer of, has part responsibility for what’s happening there.
I agree that the olympics should probably not be political, but as somebody who is biased (ie I could care less about sports), I don’t get offended when it does turn political.
As a clarification, I’m personally of the view that the IOC should be getting some flack, since they chose beijing in the first place, despite the fact that beijing didn’t deserve it. The city has already been chosen, the people of China have been granted the olympics, and they shouldn’t be punished at this point in the process. And thus the olympics can’t be taken away from them, but I sure as heck hope the IOC has a bit more of a backbone when choosing cities in the future.
“beijing didn’t deserve it (the Olympics),” someone above opined. Which country would, according to your self-righteous western standards, pray tell. Which big power does not have in its hands its share of blood, particularly western ones (case in pt. US Iraq), need I add. Such hypocrisy.
I’m not sure what “deserves” means, as again, it’s just a glorified sports meet that will be forgotten by the first week of September by all but those de-homed to make way for Olympic building projects.
However, I think what is meant is that Beijing is not living up to the standards the Olympics generally put on cities that host the event – pollution, traffic control, hr issues, etc…
@Jimu, Ryan made a pretty spot-on comment there.
Yes, I am self righteous. Why not? It’s better to be right than nice. And to answer your question, Taiwan would be a great pick, although I suppose the pollution wouldn’t be much better than Beijing.:)
this is here to stay so those that don’t like it – tough.