|
 |
 |
UNITED NATIONS — The Olympian limelight has shone upon China — Beijing, capital of the People's Republic shall host the 2008 Summer Olympics. The die has been cast by the less than Olympian International Olympic Committee, so let the countdown to the Beijing Games begin!
Realistically the Olympics have as much to do with politics as they do with sports. Awarding the games to any country boosts justifiable pride and patriotism. For a democracy such as Australia, the 2000 Sydney games showcased Australia's new century but also put the country on the map beyond the images of kangaroos and "Crocodile Dundee." Though Beijing was in the running for what became the Sydney Games, memories of the Tiananmen Square crackdown were too vivid as to get the nod.
For most countries, the Olympic has more to do with national prestige than sport. For Tokyo in 1964, the games heralded a rebuilt and prosperous postwar Japan. For Seoul 1988 Games represented a giant debutante party — presenting the once Hermit Kingdom to the world stage. The Seoul games presaged a South Korea on the cusp of genuine prosperity
Do the games bring success? In terms of prestige yes, but recall the bittersweet memories of Sarajevo, the then Yugoslav site of the Winter Olympics. Mention Sarajevo today and the city evokes images that have little to do with sport and harmony and everything to do with the visceral hatreds, which wrecked former Yugoslavia.
But while Beijing will not be so foolish as to evoke Berlin 1936, the legitimizing factor is nonetheless the same for the Chinese dictatorship as it was for the Nazis. The Games will bestow a genuine benediction on the Beijing regime, not so much for its political system but for the propaganda value of presenting China as a global player.
The People's Republic of China can be expected to put together a showcase Cecil B de Mille production certain to impress. Posters of Mao will be replaced by advertising for Motorola. Pageantry will dazzle network TV viewers. But whether communist China's dismal human and religious rights record improves remains highly problematic.
Interestingly, Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Straits favor the games, perhaps more out of a sense of Sino-solidarity than politics. Taiwan supports the Games within the Chinese cultural context; they also offer an implicit insurance policy that Beijing will have to temper its political tantrums and military threats towards Taiwan. Tibet's exiled Dalai Lama has backed the Beijing Games, likely out of the conviction that China being watched remains safer than one which watches from the outside.
As Taipei's respected China Post stated editorially on the eve of the award decision, "If Beijing wins, it will be the end of the centuries-old Chinese suspicion of the outside world...if it loses, the Chinese race, seasoned by frustrations, will be angry but not take it as the end of the world but rather view it as another suppression of China by the world." The editorial added, "The Mainland has never responded well to threats and ultimatums. But in the past ten years, as it has engaged in more friendly partnerships with the outside world. So long as it is moving in the right direction, the world should give Beijing a chance"
Of course one could have argued that the Moscow Summer Games of 1980, would have kept the Kremlin on good behavior. Yet, the invasion of Afghanistan was not shelved because of the Olympics. In the wake of the invasion, the Soviets discovered that censure was at best half hearted. The Moscow Olympics went ahead despite selective boycotts from the USA and a few other countries.
The point remains that the 2008 Beijing Olympics are not necessarily a win-win situation for People's China. Beyond the joke that the Games will not allow a venue for Chinese team members to defect, the Games will put China under a level of scrutiny they are unaccustomed to. That's why the Bush Administration did not oppose the Beijing decision.
In the countdown to the 1988 Seoul Olympics, South Korea's then still military government moderated its domestic policies and allowed a political evolution, which later led to democratization. Being in the Olympian limelight partially fostered this policy.
Yet while authoritarian systems as South Korea in the 1980's were capable of positive political change, totalitarian regimes such as China's are not so politically malleable. For Beijing's Marxist Mandarins, the real hurdle may yet be about politics.
John J. Metzler is a U.N. correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com.
