China and the Olympics are made for each other. Far from it being inappropriate to hold the Games of the 29th Olympiad in Beijing, it is absolutely fitting. After all, what have the Olympics become? A super-sized portion of hardened commercialism, marinated in whipped-up nationalism and topped off with obsessive media control.
What country other than the modern-day People's Republic of China is so well-qualified to prepare and deliver such a dish? As for China's record on human rights – what has that got to do with the greatest show on earth? Roll up, roll up.
Occasionally, members of the International Olympic Committee are reminded by irksome journalists and groups such as Amnesty International that the First Clause of the Fundamental Principles of the Olympic Charter declares that "Olympism is based on respect for universal fundamental ethical principles" and the fifth clause states that "discrimination based on religion" is "incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement". To such objections the IOC's response, essentially, has been to say that those ethical principles have nothing to do with free speech or democracy; and as for the Chinese government's treatment of Buddhists or the Falun Gong – oh, well there aren't that many of them, are there?
In fact, the International Olympic Committee was positively entranced by the control that a totalitarian system could offer in making sure that the Games could – as used to be said of railway trains under fascism – run on time. If you don't believe me, I recommend that you read the 2001 Report of the IOC Evaluation Committee on Beijing. It makes not a single reference to such matters as democracy or human rights, even in the section on "Political Structures". Instead it merely declares that "the overall presence of strong governmental control is healthy and should improve operational efficiency of the Games".
Later, in the section on "marketing", the IOC report observed that "control of advertising space in and above Beijing was guaranteed" and that "the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) has powers to seize property". Or, in other words, with a totalitarian government as a partner, nobody will dare mess with us.
To be fair, the IOC did have one principled concern that China might not be an appropriate partner. Apparently, Beijing had not yet stamped on a suggestion by the International Handball Federation that it would begin its competition "one day before the Olympic Games Opening Ceremony". Such a premature display of handball, warned the IOC, would be "contrary to the spirit of the Olympic Charter". Yes, this really is how their minds work.
There were, of course, many politicians in the world outside who took a different view back in 2001, when the Games of the 29th Olympiad were awarded to Beijing. That year, the European Parliament passed a resolution declaring that "the People's Republic of China (PRC) clearly fails to uphold human, civil and political rights, including freedom of religion... This negative record and the repression in Tibet, in Uighuristan and South Mongolia, make it inappropriate to award the 2008 Games to Beijing".
Perhaps to deflect these criticisms, leading figures within the IOC argued that the very awarding of the Games to Beijing would force the Chinese government to listen to such complaints – and act on them. Let us assume that they were being sincere in making such forecasts, and therefore merely point out that they have been proved wrong.
Last month, for example, a 54-year-old unemployed factory worker called Yang Chunlin, was jailed for five years (after a trial lasting one day) for gathering 10,000 signatures on a petition declaring "We want human rights, not the Olympics". Presumably Mr Yang was acting contrary to the spirit of the Olympics; and as we know, the Chinese government cares very deeply about the Olympic spirit.
Faced with such a stark refutation of its claims that the very awarding of the Olympics would change China's politics for the better, the IOC's officials have reacted by saying, in effect, that they can see improvements entirely invisible to everyone else. Thus Francois Carrard, the IOC's legal adviser, told the BBC last month that China's "human rights situation would not have progressed" as it has done, if the Games had not been awarded to Beijing. These people would be so much less annoying if they just stopped pretending to us that this is a matter which keeps them awake at night, or concerns them at all.
Here in Britain we have had to put up with a different performance of the moral splits – perhaps it should be a compulsory routine in the Olympic Gymnastic event – as the Labour Government struggles to appear both deeply caring while staying onside with the Chinese Government and the IOC.
Thus we had the spectacle over the weekend of a phalanx of blue-tracksuited Chinese security guards marching through London with their ridiculous Olympic torch, which apparently is the symbol of world peace and international harmony. Their efforts were aided by our own boys in blue, who ordered pro-Tibetan demonstrators to remove their T-shirts declaring "China stop the killing". (This would be the same Metropolitan Police which last year was content to allow masked demonstrators to parade with placards declaring "Massacre the enemies of Islam"). Meanwhile Gordon Brown – "beaming as he welcomed the torch to 10 Downing Street", according to the Chinese state news agency Xinhua – told the British media that "the Dalai Lama himself says he does not want to see a boycott of the Olympics and that is why I have said that as host country for the 2012 Olympics I will attend the Beijing Olympics". Does the Prime Minister, in all seriousness, expect us to believe that if the Dalai Lama had called for him to boycott Beijing, he would have done so – or even considered it? I fear that he does.
Yes, Mr Brown, come what may, will be at the opening ceremony in Beijing to applaud, along with the Chinese politburo, as thousands of synchronised Chinese dancers with identical rehearsed smiles raise a gigantic banner proclaiming the joy of world peace and the Olympic spirit. Mr Brown would do all of us back home a favour if he told the Chinese President that these grotesquely sentimental and morally hollowed-out displays of public virtue belong in Beijing – and that most Londoners would be better off if China kept the Olympic Games for good. They're welcome to it.
d.lawson@independent.co.uk
Comments