Politics fuels Olympic interest

As someone who follows politics much more avidly than sports, the Olympic Games have always seemed a tad tiresome. A bunch of countries send their jocks to a roving nation where feats of athletic prowess are performed, heroic tears are shed, and shiny ornaments are hung from sanctified necks. No politics there at all.

It even states explicitly in the Olympic Charter, "No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues, or other areas." How boring is that?

Yet this year my interest (and the interest of numerous other sports un-enthusiasts) has been piqued by the political row over China, the location of the Summer Olympics.

In its great-walled bubble of seclusion, China has been abusing human rights for generations, but now they want to join with the rest of the world by hosting the event the International Olympic Committee (IOC) describes as bringing "people together in peace to respect universal moral principles."

The sentiment of the IOC statement, while a bit extravagant for a glorified sporting event, is touching but somewhat ambiguous, especially in light of this year's location. What are these "universal moral principles" and would anyone in their right mind imagine China embodying anything of the sort?

When Tibetan rights activists recently took advantage of the world spotlight to emphasize their cause, China's ensuing crackdown wasn't an anomaly.

China actively restricts freedoms of speech and religion all the time, not to mention the long list of other abuses under its belt, which I suppose I just mentioned in spite of myself but won't again for fear of being bogged down in their enormity.

China promised to clean up its act as a condition to receiving the Olympic bid but this pledge has so far gone unfulfilled.

Vice Mayor Liu Jingmin, a key Olympic Bidding Committee official, told the Washington Post in 2001, "By applying for the Olympics we want to promote not just the city's development, but the development of society, including democracy and human rights."

Human Rights Watch spokeswoman Minky Worden recently countered, "all we're asking anyone to do is encourage the Chinese government to uphold their own voluntary commitments on human rights. It shouldn't be any type of hardship for any country, sponsor, government or Olympic body to remind the Chinese government that they made these commitments, and it's expected that they will be upheld."

Worden and countless others are calling for government leaders to boycott the opening ceremonies as a statement of solidarity against China's human rights record.

The opening ceremonies, by the way, are being held in Tiananmen Square, the site of the 1989 massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators.

This wonderfully ironic setting is compounded by an equally iconic decree by China that bans all live broadcasts from the square. For its part, the IOC has so far refused any involvement in the political uproar and has instead charged ahead toward the opening ceremonies in the same way Olympic torch runners, flanked by Chinese "torch minders," have ducked through crowds of protesters.

In a recent statement, Sophie Richardson, Asia advocacy director of Human Rights Watch, said, "the IOC seems determined to take the Chinese government's line - that human rights are a political matter and shouldn't be discussed. But that's inconsistent with the Olympic movement's original aim of fostering 'respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.' If the IOC does not find its public voice now, will it ever?"

Jacques Rogge, president of the IOC, has publicly spoken up only to express sorrow over the protests, saying that the journey of the torch was meant to be "a Journey of Harmony, bringing the message of peace to the people of different nationalities, cultures and creeds."

While this statement is, again, touching, it seems ill-fitting to current circumstances in the same way as Hitler's words were at the first lighting of the Olympic torch.

When Hitler's propaganda chief coined the idea for the torch at the outset of the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany, Hitler said, "sporting's chivalrous contest helps knit the bonds of peace between nations. Therefore, may the Olympic flame never expire."

This isn't to unsuitably compare Rogge to Hitler, but to show that, despite the best (or worst) intentions of keeping politics out of the Olympics, no sweet words can change the politicized atmosphere they shroud.

If the IOC wanted to retain its pretense of being apolitical, it should never have given China the right to hold the games in the first place, but the politic-charged lead-up to these Olympic Games will at least make them memorable, even for the previously disinterested like me.