Speaking of the Olympics and Human Rights

Andrea made the point earlier this week that perhaps by allowing the Olympics to take place in a less than "free and democratic" country, we may well help promote the respect for human rights and the rule of law by casting such a massive spotlight on the host country. In light of recent events, it's worth pointing out that Sochi, Russia has been selected as the host of the winter Olympics in 2014.

If you click the city's name above, you'll note that Sochi is quite close to the (never on Google, contrary to speculation) Georgian region of Abkhazia, one of two main battle zones in the past week's war. Also worth mentioning is the tradition of declaring an "Olympic truce" every two years during the summer and winter games.

Take a wild guess as to two of the most egregious violators of the Olympic truce during the 2008 games. That's right, Georgia and Russia. And yet, Russia is slated to host the games in 2014, within spitting distance from Georgia.

It's one thing to use the Olympics as a way to nudge less progressive regimes into the fold of international legal norms, but it's quite another to allow the games to go forward in a country that has flagrantly violated the very basic tenets of Olympism. (Granted, one could argue that Salt Lake City shouldn't have hosted the 2002 games and that London shouldn't host the 2012 games because of the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively, during those events or when those countries were selected as hosts.)

So does this mean that Sochi is scrapped and we go back to the drawing board for 2014? It probably should, especially if the IOC wants to polish up the tarnish laid upon its image as a result of the Beijing games and all the mess that has come with them. Chances are though, convenience will trump ethics, and everything will go right along as planned.

Are the Olympics a Vehicle for Promoting Human Rights?

Over the past few days, I have been torn over the 2008 Beijing Olympics, and the appearance of goodwill that the Chinese government attempts to promote. Without a doubt, China has used the Olympics as a vehicle to assert its own political and economic strength as a goodwill neighbor opening doors to foreigners. Reminds me of placing your best china out for guests (even if cracks are propagating throughout). However, the reality behind those once closed doors can no longer hide the human rights violations that continue to take place.

Part of me wants to believe that boycotting the Olympics by simply not watching it would illustrate my protest of human rights violations. But then would my peacemaking education contradict my actions? After reviewing Eugene Robinson’s Washington Post article, Smog in Beijing, I began to ask myself if engaging with those we oppose actually creates an opportunity for peacebuilding, while at the same time creating building blocks for transparency.

By allowing the Beijing Olympics to take place, the world can begin to peer over and see exactly what our neighbors’ backyard looks like, even if the front lawn is perfectly manicured. This year alone, we have seen how the Chinese government has responded to Tibetan protests and the Sichuan earthquake by not allowing certain civil liberties to be exercised. The March 2008 non-violent protest in Tibet provided a picture of how violent the Chinese government crackdowns can be, which resulted in a number of civilian deaths. Likewise, a number of parents, who criticized the lack of aid and the unresponsiveness of politicians, were arrested. And the list goes on and on. But this is really an opportunity to quantify how China behaves towards their citizens, particularly those who protest non-violently. Imagine that restriction held upon every American who is visiting China. Don’t complain, or you will get arrested.

Ironically, the Olympic Charter defines the Olympics as "a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles." So if there was ever a case to present the contradiction of universal ethics, the stage presents itself in Beijing. Truly the spotlight is on them, and we are watching their performance.

However, the Olympic Games does give foreign governments an opportunity to positively create or reinvigorate existing relationships. Likewise, the Olympics give athletes, visitors, and Chinese citizens an opportunity to exchange ideas and begin building a bridge of communication, instead of continuing to make a myriad of generalizations about the Other.

In the end, we may not agree with their treatment of civil liberties, but creating stepping-stones to continue communication may allow for some of our human rights opinions to trickle in and change society one person at a time. And this could be a chance to improve relationships instead of ignoring them.

In the end, we still have the choice to turn off the TV and voice our opinions if we disagree with the Chinese government. But aren’t we so lucky to have that choice?