When the International Olympic Committee awarded Beijing the 2008 Olympics nearly seven years ago, it did so knowing China’s record on human rights made it a controversial decision fraught with risk.
“We are making the bet that seven years from now, we sincerely and dearly hope we will see many changes,” said Francois Carrard, then the director general of the IOC.
But the IOC and Beijing organizers are facing a public relations nightmare 122 days before the Games begin. Protesters expressing outrage over Chinese repression in Tibet and China’s support for Sudan’s genocide in Darfur attempted to extinguish the Olympic torch on its journey through London and Paris this week.
“I’m very concerned with the international situation and what’s happening in Tibet,” IOC president Jacques Rogge said in a short speech Monday in Beijing. “The torch relay has been targeted. The International Olympic Committee has expressed its serious concern and calls for a rapid peaceful resolution in Tibet.”
Rogge has been insisting in recent weeks the IOC was engaging in “silent diplomacy” to exert pressure on China’s rulers. He is expected to meet with government officials while in Beijing for meetings of national Olympic committees and the IOC executive board.
While there appears scant sentiment for a full boycott of the Games — neither Human Rights Watch nor Amnesty International is calling for one — there have been calls for heads of state to boycott the opening ceremony. German chancellor Angela Merkel has said she will not attend it, and French president Nicolas Sarkozy has said he may snub it as well.
“We have certainly suggested to heads of state that they really want to think twice whether it’s appropriate for them to go stand arm in arm in August with (Chinese president) Hu Jintao,” said Sophie Richardson, Asian Advocacy Director for Human Rights Watch.
With the Games only four months away, they present a ripe opportunity for human- rights activists to draw attention to China’s abuses. Those close to the Olympic movement argue a boycott would harm the athletes with little prospect of changing China’s behavior.
“If a boycott were to have some actual effect, it might be worthwhile, but it didn’t change Russia,” said Benji Durden of Boulder, a former elite marathoner who was a victim of Jimmy Carter’s boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics. “Russia went on and did what they were going to do in Afghanistan, and none of that changed. It’s a pointless endeavor. The only people who would be punished by something like this are the athletes who have no control over such things. It wouldn’t affect China’s behavior in any way.”
The U.S. Olympic Committee says a boycott won’t be considered.
“Boycotts are futile, useless and accomplish nothing other than unfairly punishing athletes,” USOC spokesman Darryl Seibel said.
When Beijing won the Games, the IOC acknowledged China’s troubling record on human rights but chose engagement instead of isolation as a means of influencing change. Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who attended those meetings as a non-voting member, thought it was a reasonable risk.
“From a strictly foreign policy point of view, I think there are more pluses than minuses,” Kissinger said at the time. “It should give (China) incentive for restrained behavior, and it should give us an opportunity to influence Chinese conduct.”
Most say China has made little or no progress on human rights since then.
“To some extent, economic development in China gives people a little more personal freedom,” Richardson said. “At the same time, we’re looking at some pretty serious rollbacks, particularly in how critics of the government or people who object to the Olympics are being treated.”
Cynics in 2001 suggest Beijing won the Games simply because multinational corporations coveted the Chinese market, with a population of 1.3 billion people representing more than 20 percent of the planet’s population. Now Olympic sponsors are in a predicament, not wanting to be seen as enabling a repressive regime but reluctant to alienate China.
One of them is General Electric, one of 12 sponsors with worldwide marketing rights to the Beijing Games along with Coca-Cola, McDonald’s and Visa. GE also is the parent company of NBC, which paid $894 million for the rights to televise the Beijing Games.
“We’re watching all of these issues very, very carefully,” GE spokeswoman Deirdre Latour said. “The conflict in Tibet, particularly, we hope is resolved without any further violence. Overall, the spirit of the Games is a force for good. They can have many positive influences. We don’t think the Games should be used as a platform to resolve all global issues. We think it’s an event for athletes around the world.”
John Meyer: 303-954-1616 or jmeyer@denverpost.com
