“China’s Olympic Warmup”, an article from Time Magazine, discusses the progression of China toward a more modernized and visionary nation, as the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing looms closer. It begins with an accurate depiction of Beijing as a global city with an obvious capitalistic nature similar to industrialized cities in the western world. However, the article reverts back to ways in which China is still an isolated, alienated, stubborn nation, unwilling to submit itself wholly to the demands of foreigners. Nevertheless, the Olympic Games next year will give China a chance to dismiss misconceptions that surround the country and will allow them to show the world what they are truly capable of. As the Chinese people envision a positive, and prosperous future with endless possibilities, political leaders and countless activists from all corners of the world are highly skeptical about Chinese domestic and foreign policy and find their own chances to confront the Chinese government by means of the Beijing Summer Olympics.
The article points out the dramatic transformation of Beijing, but it fails to address immediately the static and oppressive character in the rest of the country. The article notes this after it emphasizes the reconstruction of Beijing so as to illustrate the glaring disparity between the thriving capital city and the rest of the country stuck in the 19th Century. China is trying to convey to the world this superficial image, while still harboring deeply ingrained flaws and issues. There is no freedom of the press within the Chinese media, but it is granted to American reporters and British news stations to a significant extent. The domestic media faces more regulations and laws than the foreign press. Human rights is also of main concern to international activists and organizations who see Hutongs, although in poor condition, stripped from entire families, leaving them homeless as a result of the rapid transition from traditional to modern. They see the injustice in the government’s AIDS policy that leaves women especially vulnerable, and they see an egregious rights issue under the direction of the government in Tibet. More notably, it is a fact that the Chinese government is the number one foreign consumer and investor of Sudanese oil, thus China is financing and supporting a government that is deliberately attacking its own people in Darfur. Hu Jia, a political activist, believes, “It’s a policy of ‘soft to the outside, strict within’”, where he describes a nation committed to concealing these underlying issues. However, as China finds itself competing with the world’s powers in wealth, growth, and prestige, it also becomes subjected to codes of conduct expected of its position. China’s increased visibility means the potential for more scrutiny.
The question comes down to whether the Olympic Games in Beijing should be boycotted, and by whom. Will the Chinese let other nations dictate the way it is to conduct its own business? Will the games in 2008 be a chance for the Chinese people to reevaluate their goals and prove their capabilities or will it be an opportunity for foreign powers to intervene and point out all the flaws that this country has yet to resolve? Elegant leaves an open-ended question for the reader to contemplate.
I have never liked the idea of boycotting the Olympics because first you have the competitors, the athletes who have worked so hard to get to that point. The coaches, the committee, who try so hard to get things running as smoothly as possible. The Chinese government takes no part in their lives, dedication, and aspirations. I know it would be a symbolic protest, but protest in this case would be unnecessary and ineffective. If you want anything to change or get done, speak your voice to the government more directly, where you aren't affecting the millions of people who are looking forward to the Olympics, the millions of Chinese who have pride in their country, and the hundreds of athletes who have spent years training for this event. The actions of the Chinese government you may disagree with, like me and perhaps countless other activists, but lets put our activism where we can be most effective and that doesn't mean boycotting the Olympics. Look at the positives of this event and what it means to the Chinese people; look at what the boycotting will lead to, its consequences. We should have a voice especially when in regards to social and human rights' issues, but using the Olympics as a means to do so is not right at all. Yes there have been protests at the Olympics in the past, but it didn't solve anything, didn't help pass any legislation, didn't change a dictator's mind, only exacerbated the conflict, and so forth. I believe to represent peace, it needs to steer clear from politics, from socioeconomic issues, from human rights/egregious issues, and focus on the things we share justice in, on our commonalities, aspects that unite us. All these issues should surely be addressed, and people from all over the world should recognize and voice out against it and do something to try and change it, but the Olympics is not the place for this conflict between passionate activists and the Chinese government; it should be above that fray. The world is coming together in China, thus let it be that we come together in peace, that we are willing, for the sake of all participants and viewers, to forget about our differences for that brief period of time.
We aren’t at a time to truly or justifiably say what should be done in terms of boycotting the Beijing Olympics. We may find that a boycott will not be necessary as the year progresses, or we may find that it is the only option available; the only right thing to do. The basis for my argument is that if we look throughout the course of the games, a boycott, and solely a boycott, was not entirely effective, however, it did lead to other initiatives, such as when the United States, along with many other western nations, boycotted the Moscow Games because the Soviet Union had recently invaded Afghanistan. If the actual boycott doesn't do much, the consequences or results of that boycott can hold a lot of impact, which is really the true purpose of a boycott. It may start a path toward progress, if planned out carefully. It may start some sort of positive revolution or evolution if approached intellectually and cautiously, because the last thing we need is to act on impulses, and look at the underlying issue as an excuse to interfere arrogantly in the Chinese government. We must understand who we are dealing with, and how we can go about making compromises and resolutions before we resort to boycott. Really, it should be of last resort, if it is to be done at all.
In shifting focus to Chinese pro-democracy activists, it is widely known that the Chinese citizens are kept ignorant of what is going on with the Tibet conflict, and if they learned of the situation, or were educated in this conflict, no doubt, many Chinese civilians would be ashamed and angry, frustrated even with the control of their own government and the injustice being committed by their own leaders. I am sure the majority would not be too happy.
We should leave money out of this debate because it really isn't the issue. Sure, the Chinese would be losing the potential money they would have earned to pay for the city development, and perhaps those countries that boycott may lose a little from their pockets, but it just isn't the problem if you think about it. I mean we are dealing with human lives here, and a terrible injustice. The IOC has come out with a statement of proposals that the committee and several organizations from around the world demand China to adhere by, which involves China improving it's human rights' records. On top of that, it also involves allowing the Tibetans religious freedom, and calls for democratization in the region. As for the event, it demands that the government allow the international media to have full coverage of the games, and lift bans and restrictions on the people who can participate, which includes those, such as the Dalai Lama and Indian exiles, as well as the Taiwanese who have campaigned for democracy in Tibet.
The article refers to Yuan Weijing, wife of a blind lawyer who escaped from house arrest after being detained for publicizing the abuses of women by government officials in regards to family-planning, but she was again confined to house arrest after these officials finally found her. This anecdote shows the persistence of the Chinese government. It is a sad thing what the Chinese government is doing. If it does not comply with all the aspects of the statement, then other measures will have to take shape in any form most coherent, responsible, and effective. If it means that we must boycott, then so be it, but as of right now, I don't see how boycotting will do any good.
One country boycotting the Olympics would not be enough to help the Tibet situation or the conflict in Darfur, and if it cannot help it fully or contribute to it largely and effectively and would only alter China's approach only moderately and may even do more harm and disrupt international relationships then there has got to be other ways that we could be more effective in resolving the Tibet conflict, that would not involve the Olympic games, that could represent a larger, broader voice, even from Americans (because surely Americans boycotting the Olympics would be dire to our alliance with China, even the smallest conflict could do harm because sadly we have become too dependent on China, and they have become too dependent on us), which would bring the issue to the government faster and more directly, and we (America) could address the problem more intellectually, and appropriately, because more than ever do we have to be smart about who we choose to confront.
Posts
