[Denis Shatokhin]
Following the protests against Chinese rule in Tibet, and especially since the violent suppression of dissenters by Chinese security forces, there are an increasing number of calls for a boycott of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. This boycott would supposedly put the Chinese government under immense pressure and force them to improve their human rights record. Although many International Olympic Committee (IOC) officials argue that the Olympic Games are not political, history contradicts this.
The Olympics, since their very inception, have been used, or misused, for political ends. In the 1920 Olympics in Antwerp, France and Belgium forced the IOC to exclude those countries which lost WW I from competing – namely Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey. This, however, was only the beginning of a long series of exclusions, boycotts and political disputes to arise over the Games, culminating in Moscow 1980, where only 81 out of 142 countries permitted their athletes to compete: a very clear political statement.
It is apparent that the Chinese government is already using the 2008 Olympics as a huge public relations campaign for China. The world is watching, and the world should see a new China with high-tech skyscrapers and unimaginable modernisation. In order to achieve this, the Communist Party has ordered that its harshest critics be thrown into prison, or be silenced by other means. The Party has spent lavishly on campaigns teaching the ordinary Beijing resident how to queue at a bus stop, and not to spit on the streets. China wants to show the world its modern, harmonious, orderly society.
But then the issue of Tibet came to the fore and China suddenly became the focus of the world’s media attention, 5 months earlier than planned. Tibet has become a public relations disaster for the Chinese government, as demonstrated clearly by the protests on the path of the Olympic torch. However, many foreign observers have overlooked one very important fact: for the Communist Party, the territorial integrity of China is nothing short of holy. It is, along with economic growth, the Party’s life assurance - something the Party would not jeopardise under any circumstances – not even under a threat of a boycott.
Let us think about a hypothetical boycott and its effects, especially on Tibet. As previous Olympic boycotts have shown, the desired results are rarely achieved, if ever. In the case of China, it is practically impossible for one simple reason – the economic interests of all parties involved. For a Western leader to take the responsibility of deciding to boycott the games or to put economic sanctions into practice would be nothing short of committing political suicide. One simply cannot imagine a life without goods “Made in China”. Most of us would be running around naked, have no television, no mobile phone and no computer. Our economies are so intertwined that we would be affected economically just as much as China itself. Moreover, there has never been a case in world history when human rights have trumped economic interests.
If Western countries mutually agree to boycott the Olympics, the effects, in fact, will be more devastating for the West than for China herself. And more importantly, they will not be of any help to the Tibetans, or other suppressed minorities and critics. Furthermore the majority of the Chinese population will not be able to understand the boycott, because the Chinese media would never admit the true reasons for its implementation. The propaganda machine will accuse the West of unfairly obstructing China, and this will only serve to reinforce the growing feeling in China that Western media outlets have an anti-China bias, and feed the already strong sense of belligerent nationalism.
The Chinese government knows that the West is a paper tiger. It invites the Dalai Lama to talks and gives promises to the Tibetans, knowing full well that it is in no position to fulfil them. The West will never cut off its nose to spite its face.
One Comment
Great article