I’m a bit confused over the recent flurry of activity about boycotting the Beijing Olympics.
People are taking a stance against a myriad of offenses perpetrated by the Chinese government. From the unspeakable genocide in Darfur, to the terrible pollution, to the uprising in Tibet, to human rights abuses, people are angry and standing up for those in need. As they should.
These are problems the world needs to deal with right away. Waiting a single day to take action, real action, against any of these atrocities is a tragedy.
But the issue is this: We, i.e., the International Olympic Committee, voted to give the Olympics to Beijing by more than a 2 to 1 margin over Toronto in 2001. It wasn’t even close. And while there was a slight uproar in corners of the world, the majority shrugged its shoulders and moved on.
Now that more of the same is occurring in China seven years later, people are having second thoughts. Steven Spielberg has backed out of being an artistic advisor to the games, citing concerns over Darfur and China’s connection with the Sudanese government. Just today, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said he would not rule out boycotting the opening ceremonies until Chinese authorities loosen their grip on Tibet.
These problems have been going on for longer than we’d like to admit. Yes, the situation in Tibet has deteriorated, but it has always been tenuous at best. Darfur has been perpetually horrendous since 2003.
But for the most part, this is business as usual for the Chinese government.
The world should have said no to Beijing when it had the chance. The problem is it didn’t. It unleashed the beast onto the public and now it’s cringing at the results.
The question is, why did Spielberg accept the position if he knew China’s open dirty secrets? And why did he wait until now to abdicate his position?
Perhaps this is all an elaborate attempt to get the Chinese to behave. Give them a toy and then threaten to take it away if they don’t behave. This is the only explanation that sheds any light on these revelations of late. And this is essentially how Spielberg played it.
“You’re not playing the way I wanted to play, so now I’m taking my ball and I’m going home.”
The thing is the games will continue. And they should. But we should learn from this mistake.
When a country isn’t ready to play by our rules we shouldn’t let them into the game.
What this means is that we should keep fighting vigorously against all the pernicious Chinese policies, and the litany of offenses is long, but we should bite our lip when it comes to their games.
It was our idea to have them throw the party. It’s our own fault if we don’t like the food.
1 response so far ↓
Laura Studley // April 11, 2008 at 2:27 am
MF: Great blog with provoking insights. Thank you for sharing!
But I have to propose a potential alternative motive of this resulting issue.
It is my belief that the “party” was granted with the belief that the increased scrutiny that would inevitably arise would benefit the “host” and that China would liberalize – to an extent – as a result. Similar to your reference to the Spielberg example.
In fact, as we know, this is not how things worked out. Have you ever been invited to a “costume party” only to arrive and be the only goober to have worn an actual costume? This must be the way France, UK, and USA heads of state/ Olympic delegates must feel.
Just because we are the idiots in the costume does not mean, however, that we should bite our lips for being duped. On the contrary, we have another attempt, perhaps with even greater significance, to shed light on these grievances and bring awareness of them to a greater world stage.
In closing, I think it is also important to separate the politics from the sport. Olympic athletes have given a great personal sacrifice to represent their respective countries at these games. Political leaders should take note to honor and support these athletes (be them Chinese or otherwise) and relegate the boycotting fervor to the political arenas.
pax | lls