The Ethics of Beijing 2008

In theory, the Olympic Games are meant to be about the athletes rather than politics. However, there is a long history of the politicization of the games primarily through the use of boycotts. The 1936 Olympics held in Nazi Germany is probably the earliest example of an Olympics where the ethics of participation became very controversial, most notably in the United States where debate was livelier than anywhere else. It was evident that Germany was violating the discrimination policies of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). However, at the time the Western world was still not convinced that the reports of massive Jewish concentration camps were true. Unfortunately, Avery Bundage, the president of the International Olympic Committee, expressed skepticism over what he believed were rumors spread by Jewish conspirators. He ultimately decided that the games would go on. Thus, in 1936 the world played as massive human rights atrocities were being committed behind the scenes.

Although attempts to boycott the 1936 games were unsuccessful, there are plenty of examples where boycotts do succeed and nations are able to make their statement. In 1976, twenty-five African countries boycotted the Montreal Olympics due to the participation of New Zealand, who at the time, still had close ties to the South African apartheid regime. In 1980, America successfully led a boycott against the Summer Olympic held in Moscow that year. They were joined by Japan, Taiwan, West Germany, Canada and 61 other nations. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan bluntly told the South Korean junta that the United States would boycott the 1988 Seoul Olympics if democracy was not introduced beforehand.

This summer, the world will go to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to participate in the Beijing Olympics. The PRC promises the global audience that it will be the most dazzling Olympics the world has ever seen. Indeed, the IOC has given China its platform to announce what it sees as its ascendance as a world power that will shape international politics and global culture in the twenty-first century. Most global leaders seem to be standing by idly or cheering China on. No significant state has yet to threaten a boycott of the Beijing Olympics regardless of the fact that the PRC is unequivocally the worst human rights abuser of the twenty-first century.

In fact, it has been estimated that China has already displaced or relocated 300,000 Chinese citizens to make room for the games. A country with no private property rights for ordinary citizens is truly a developers’ dream. Not only are regular Chinese citizens being dispossessed to make way for the games, the new facilities that are being built on top of their homes have been declared off limits for locals. However, not much of this news can be reported in a country where journalists and bloggers are beaten to death for publishing “subversive” material.
Of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg.

There are still at this moment over six million Chinese in re-education camps for expressing dissident ideas. Over 90 million Falun Gong members are still persecuted for practicing their religion and are used as involuntary organ donors for the PRC’s transplant industry. The PRC also continues to support the genocidal regime in Sudan and has blocked any UN resolution that would condemn the Sudanese government for massacring its own people in Darfur. Chinese citizens live with censorship, intimidation by secret police and political persecution by a government that does not grant them basic human rights.

It is unclear how effective a boycott of the Beijing Olympics would be, however, I’m sure that many Canadians would support their government if they did call for one. It may potentially be easier to embarrass and pressure China into treating its citizens with decency by putting it in the spotlight. Unlike 1936, global citizens know what is happening behind the scenes in China. While enjoying the games this summer, it would be reprehensible if we do not make our voices heard for those who are negated that luxury due to the anachronistic dogma and tyranny of the PRC.