Olympics and Politics
Olympics and Politics
by
Carlos Cueva-Alegria
Having the ability to know three languages is really helpful when trying to piece together information from different places. The Tibetan riots in early March which consequently sparked the Olympic torch protests around the world are no exception. In reading through Chinese media and Western media, it is clear that both sides are guilty of biased reporting. While the Western media lacks a Chinese perspective, the Chinese media lacks a Tibetan perspective. However, the most surprising discovery while reading the Chinese media is the inability of the Chinese side to understand the connection between the Olympics and politics. One definition of politics is “the social relations involving intrigue to gain authority or power”.
Therefore, it is surprising to find that the common theme in the Chinese media is the complaint of people who “don’t understand why people are politicizing the Olympics”, that “the Olympics are about sports, have nothing to do with politics”. Neither of these two claims is completely accurate. The Olympics have been politicized perhaps as early as World War Two, when Adolf Hitler used the games to place “Aryan” supremacy in the spotlight. While I am not trying to compare Hu Jintao to Adolf Hitler, we should note that when Beijing was awarded the games in 2001, vice premier Li Lanqing stated that “the winning of the 2008 Olympic bid is an example of the international recognition of China's social stability, economic progress and the healthy life of the Chinese people”. How is this not a political statement? How is this also an accurate statement? The outbreak of SARS in 2003 can hardly be classified as “healthy”, and neither can the recent problems with Avian Flu. China’s frequent rural unrest can also not be classified as “social stability”. The most obvious case is Tibet, however simply focusing on Tibet would be to ignore the thousands of Chinese who protest local authority for corruption and cover ups every year, the most recent example being the June 28th protest in Guizhou.
Contrary to popular belief, the winning city is not chosen through an elimination game of rock-paper-scissors. Each city that submits a bid for the Olympics fights very hard to convince the International Olympic Committee that their city will provide the best venues, the best security, and the best environment. Economics and politics have plenty to do with the decision process. We can look at Beijing’s bid for the 2000 Olympics as a perfect example. China presented the Olympic Museum in Switzerland with a 2,200 year old Terracotta Warrior, something which they had refused to sell for as much as 100 million dollars before. Was this not a politically savvy maneuver to woo the International Olympic Committee into voting for Beijing? Would the US give away the Statue of Liberty? Would France give away the Eiffel Tower? It should also be noted that Beijing narrowly lost to Sydney in its bid for the 2000 Olympics. Also intriguing is the fact that if the Olympics are to be non political, why is China upset if the leaders of some countries are not present for the opening ceremony? This should be a non issue if it is really about sports only. If the games are to be non political, why is China insisting that the Dalai Lama support the games in order to hold talks with his envoys? Is this not the same tactic that protestors used to gain attention by using the torch relay as a way to apply pressure? When nationalism is at its highest however, it becomes impossible to notice one’s own contradictions.
There are so many examples that show the politicization of the Olympics, some of them coming from China itself. To claim that the Olympics are not political is not only inaccurate, it is also bias, which ironically is what China is complaining the most about the Western media. Nationalism has plenty to do with blinding people to obvious facts, both in China and in the US. In an effort to avoid conflict however, we should all make better strides to thoroughly investigate a situation. We should all think critically, rather than emotionally, in order to reach our conclusions.
by
Carlos Cueva-Alegria
Having the ability to know three languages is really helpful when trying to piece together information from different places. The Tibetan riots in early March which consequently sparked the Olympic torch protests around the world are no exception. In reading through Chinese media and Western media, it is clear that both sides are guilty of biased reporting. While the Western media lacks a Chinese perspective, the Chinese media lacks a Tibetan perspective. However, the most surprising discovery while reading the Chinese media is the inability of the Chinese side to understand the connection between the Olympics and politics. One definition of politics is “the social relations involving intrigue to gain authority or power”.
Therefore, it is surprising to find that the common theme in the Chinese media is the complaint of people who “don’t understand why people are politicizing the Olympics”, that “the Olympics are about sports, have nothing to do with politics”. Neither of these two claims is completely accurate. The Olympics have been politicized perhaps as early as World War Two, when Adolf Hitler used the games to place “Aryan” supremacy in the spotlight. While I am not trying to compare Hu Jintao to Adolf Hitler, we should note that when Beijing was awarded the games in 2001, vice premier Li Lanqing stated that “the winning of the 2008 Olympic bid is an example of the international recognition of China's social stability, economic progress and the healthy life of the Chinese people”. How is this not a political statement? How is this also an accurate statement? The outbreak of SARS in 2003 can hardly be classified as “healthy”, and neither can the recent problems with Avian Flu. China’s frequent rural unrest can also not be classified as “social stability”. The most obvious case is Tibet, however simply focusing on Tibet would be to ignore the thousands of Chinese who protest local authority for corruption and cover ups every year, the most recent example being the June 28th protest in Guizhou.
Contrary to popular belief, the winning city is not chosen through an elimination game of rock-paper-scissors. Each city that submits a bid for the Olympics fights very hard to convince the International Olympic Committee that their city will provide the best venues, the best security, and the best environment. Economics and politics have plenty to do with the decision process. We can look at Beijing’s bid for the 2000 Olympics as a perfect example. China presented the Olympic Museum in Switzerland with a 2,200 year old Terracotta Warrior, something which they had refused to sell for as much as 100 million dollars before. Was this not a politically savvy maneuver to woo the International Olympic Committee into voting for Beijing? Would the US give away the Statue of Liberty? Would France give away the Eiffel Tower? It should also be noted that Beijing narrowly lost to Sydney in its bid for the 2000 Olympics. Also intriguing is the fact that if the Olympics are to be non political, why is China upset if the leaders of some countries are not present for the opening ceremony? This should be a non issue if it is really about sports only. If the games are to be non political, why is China insisting that the Dalai Lama support the games in order to hold talks with his envoys? Is this not the same tactic that protestors used to gain attention by using the torch relay as a way to apply pressure? When nationalism is at its highest however, it becomes impossible to notice one’s own contradictions.
There are so many examples that show the politicization of the Olympics, some of them coming from China itself. To claim that the Olympics are not political is not only inaccurate, it is also bias, which ironically is what China is complaining the most about the Western media. Nationalism has plenty to do with blinding people to obvious facts, both in China and in the US. In an effort to avoid conflict however, we should all make better strides to thoroughly investigate a situation. We should all think critically, rather than emotionally, in order to reach our conclusions.
posted by Dreamer at
7:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home