The Olympic Games will kick off in Beijing on August 8, not without mixed emotions in Europe, North America, and elsewhere. On the one hand, China is one of the largest countries in the world, and the most populous, with a rich and fascinating culture extending back thousands of years - a wonderful place to celebrate the games. On the other hand, the Chinese Communist Party is a rather nasty regime, and one does not exactly relish the idea of handing them a publicity bonanza and propaganda gift basket in the form of the Olympics.
China has a long history of human rights abuses, but in the wake of this spring’s protests in Tibet –and China’s heavy-handed response to them– the calls for a boycott of the Olympics have grown louder. Examining the issue from a purely practical perspective – the realpolitik standpoint – one can see that a boycott would be pointless and perhaps counterproductive. What is more, if we look at the problem in an entirely emotional and idealistic light, the need for full participation in the games becomes even stronger.
As distasteful as it may seem, participating in the games makes logical sense. When it comes to relations with China, one must realize that the issue is not Tibet, but Tiananmen Square – in other words, the occupation of Tibet should concern us less than the Chinese government’s repression of human rights in all of China. This is not to trivialize the plight of the Tibetan people; well may we say “Free Tibet,” but let us add “Free Beijing” (and Guangdong, and Henan etc) as well. Our dream for China should be that of a free and open society, a democracy where the basic human rights of all people are not only protected, but cherished. This is a rather simple sentiment, but it is complicated by another issue: trade.
I think I speak for the entire editorial staff when I say that we deplore how the Communist government treats its citizens. Still, the truth is that to ostentatiously boycott the Olympics over concerns about human rights, and yet continue to trade with China, smacks of hypocrisy. Equally apparent is the fact that China is inextricably linked to the global economy, and severing trade relations is neither feasible nor desirable. China is not South Africa. The world could afford to exclude South Africa to make a statement about apartheid, because the world was not dependent on South African products and markets – not so with China. Not only is China an enormous supplier of goods, it is a huge market as well. Western countries want the cheap labor and exports that China provides, but they also want to sell their products to that gigantic workforce. While any disruption of trade relations would probably hurt China more than western nations, the tangled, global nature of modern economics means that no one could realistically consider a boycott to be desirable.
A boycott would be foolish, because it aims to shut China off from the world. If we really want to change China, then we have to engage it. Increased trade means more western goods flowing into the country, and along with them come western ideas. The Olympics means a flood of foreign visitors – not just athletes, but tourists, dignitaries, and press. The foreign press, I think, could have a profound impact on Beijing during the festivities. Already there are small victories; the BBC website is now freely accessible in China, for example, and Beijing has tentatively moved towards a more open dialogue with Tibetan leaders. If you want to change China, you have to go there first.
Setting asides reasons of practicality, there is another way of looking at the Olympics, one that demands our participation. This is the idealistic viewpoint, and I freely admit that some may not find it terribly convincing, depending on one’s attitudes towards sport and athletics.
At their best, the Olympics embody the old Victorian public school idea of amateur sport (of course the Olympics have not been truly amateur for a long time, but that is besides the point at the moment) as an ennobling and worthwhile pursuit – sublimating aggression and conflict into graceful competition, the purifying agon turning rivals into comrades. It is an old-fashioned notion, easy to scoff at, ridiculously easy to mock, but there may be something in it, after all. Sport can force people to reach within themselves and discover new depths of will and endurance, to try harder, to strive for excellence. As Kipling challenged in his poem “If—,” “If you can fill the unforgiving minute/With sixty seconds worth of distance run/Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it.” Sport is a peaceful path to glory.
Glory, some will say, is exactly the problem. They may be right, to some extent; certainly increased professionalism in sport has combined with the spread of mass media to create an atmosphere where advertising, sponsorships, and winning have been inextricably muddled. Sir Henry Newbolt, in his Vitai Lampada, may claim that the athlete plays “not for the sake of a ribboned coat./Or the selfish hope of a season’s fame,” but one can be forgiven for doubting him. Certainly China’s Communist leaders are looking for reflected glory from their athletes; hosting the games is an enormous honor, a chance to showcase not only Beijing, but all of China to the world, and undoubtedly any victories by Chinese athletes will be spun for propaganda purposes – but this is missing the point. Regardless of why one competes, the important thing is that one is competing, no matter the result. A US victory in the 100m is not going to make the world safe for democracy. Instead, the point is that people from all over the world are coming together to run races and play games. Forming ties and spreading ideals, like the Olympic creed, that transcend national boundaries is the key to promoting peace in the world.
It is in that light that we should view the upcoming Olympics; an elegant, peaceful contest between the nations, a chance to form bonds by athletic means. I will let Sir Henry have the last word: “…the voice of a schoolboy rallies the ranks/‘Play up! Play up! And play the game!’”
