"We believe the Olympic Games are not the place for demonstrations and we hope that all people attending the Games recognize the importance of this." Thus spake Samsung Electronics, one of the 12 major sponsors of the Olympic Games in Beijing. Coca-Cola, another sponsor, has stated that it would be inappropriate to "comment on the political situations in other nations." The chairman of the IOC, Jacques Rogge, was also quick to declare that a boycott "doesn't solve anything," just as quick as he dismissed protesters at the flame lighting ceremony saying, rather pompously, "It's always sad to see such a ceremony disrupted."
This shouldn't surprise anyone. Companies have invested millions of dollars and Olympic bureaucrats have spent years trying to justify the decision to hold the Olympic Games in China, and they are using these types of arguments, but that doesn't mean I have to believe them. Let's run through them real quick, shall we?
A boycott doesn't solve anything.
Really? Some boycotts do help solve things. The boycott of South African athletes was probably the most effective thing the international community did to help end apartheid. There's a famous quote that said, "They (South Africans) didn't mind much about the business sanctions, but what they really, really minded--was the cricket." The 1980 boycott of the Moscow Olympics helped to undermine the Soviet propaganda concerning the invasion of Afghanistan, as well as helping the Western world to unify against something. I don't know for certain, but I'm pretty sure that from the Soviet perspective, their boycott of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics did the same for them.
The Olympics are a source of good.
Not always! For those too young to remember, the 1936 Olympic Games were held in Berlin, and were used as an astonishing propaganda coup for Hitler of almost Leni Riefenstahl quality. It's true that Jesse Owens shot holes all through Hitler's theory of Aryan racial superiority, but Hitler still got what he wanted out of the Games. The whole world thought that Germany was back in the family of nations again, and that Hitler could be tolerated. All this while the Nuremburg Laws were being enforced, camps in Dacau were packed, and people were cheering in Berlin.
The Olympic Games are not the place for demonstrations.
Actually, aren't the Olympics the perfect place for demonstrations? The world's media is in one place with cameras rolling and the purpose of the Olympics is a political one: to promote international peace by encouraging healthy competition between nations. Hence the emphasis of national teams instead of individuals. Hence the medal count of nations. Hence the opening and closing ceremonies and the use of flags and national anthems.
These elements make the Olympics special and separate them from similar competitions, but it's also what gives them a nasty edge. The old US vs USSR rivalry, the parade of deep-voiced, mustachioed women from East Germany, and the medal counts. All these are examples of the politicization of the Olympics. The black power demonstrations at the 1968 Mexico City Games, the 1972 Munich Games, Aborigines protesting the 2000 Sydney Games. As well as everything associated with the 2008 Games; the passing of the torch through Tibet, the use of the Games to spur Chinese Socialist development, and to promote the domestic and foreign image of the Chinese state.
Some people have mentioned that the heads of state of different nations boycott attending the opening games. Seriously, what would that do? Were Bush and Blair at the Turin or Sydney Games? I don't remember nor care. Others have suggested that we go, and just protest at the games in similar vain to what was done in Mexico City. Does anyone really believe that would happen? Not because people wouldn't try, because I'm sure that they would, but because the Chinese state is one that has become very good at suppressing opinions that differ from their own, especially one's of performers. A teacher in one of my classes last night said that maybe athletes should carry Tibet flags under their shirts and unfurl them when they march out for the opening ceremony. Does anyone think that the Chinese will not be checking for anything like that? They've had nearly eight years to prepare themselves for something that they are already quite good at, and it's naive to think otherwise.
But it's no wonder that everyone who hates or fears China, from the people of Tibet, North Korea, Burma, Darfur, or even Beijing itself are calling for a boycott. And the Chinese and the IOC are terrified at the chance of their success. No one preparing for this year's games believes that it's "just about the athletes," or that Beijing will be simply a display of athletic prowess, or that they bear no nature of Chinese politics. And I don't see why we should all believe it either.
Lak
