"More so than any other Olympics since Berlin 1936, both viewers and participants will be asked to strenuously ignore the politics of the host country."
Imagine this. It’s August 8th, 2008, opening day of the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics and you are standing in the Beijing National Stadium, known as the “Bird’s Nest”, and it’s empty. The athlete’s village is empty, and almost as devastating, NBC’s press suites, and thousands of hotels rooms, are all empty. The city has been stood-up by all of its out-of-town guests. A new bad luck number: 8.8.08.
I take the Olympics seriously and hold on to what some might see as a sentimental or naïve view of the game’s ethos of peace and unity. This optimism was first cultivated as a kid when I watched Western and Soviet block teams compete at the end of the Cold War. My family and I shared Dan Jansen’s repeated heartbreaks, celebrated the showboating and early dynamo of Alberto Tomba, and cherished the doomed attempts of the near sighted and loveable Eddie “The Eagle”. The games to me were a soft-focused, feel good montage of character, accomplishment and comeback. I still feel this way.
In fact the Olympics at its core is about the belief that the world together for two weeks can recognize the common virtues of humanity. The encapsulated nature of the games, that focused energy and attention on a stage of international players who are judged by athletic achievement, not politics or economy, is what allows for optimism and unity to flourish above fear and cynicism. This stage is vulnerable, and as we have seen in past games, bribery, drug use, and conspiracy, having made their way up the mountain. Unfortunately, this summer’s games are tainted before they begin. More so than any other Olympics since Berlin 1936, both viewers and participants will be asked to strenuously ignore the politics of the host country. The Olympics after all, are not just a celebration of the athletes, but of the host city, and because it’s Beijing, the new China. And despite all that is new and hopeful showcased for the foreign Press, there are few inconveniences hanging around not approved for primetime, namely Tibet.
Last week’s protests in Lhasa, and in turn, the government’s immediate suppression of international media coverage reminded the world that China is having a difficult time handling the global scrutiny tied to hosting the Olympics. The world has for a long time recognized that there is a human rights crisis in Tibet, and for various reasons has done little. But what if we did do something about?
What if that morning, instead of athletes exiting planes, a single letter was handed to the head of the Chinese Olympic Committee waiting at the gate?
That letter was in fact a proclamation from all participating nations stating that because of “various state supported abuses, ethic marginalization, suppression of the press, alliances with Khartoum, Sudan, and bad dog food, we in good conscious will not participate in your games. Sorry for the late notice.” Needless to say this would be an unprecedented show of principle and balls, and we can assume that it will not happen. But if it did, would the embarrassment force Beijing to respect Tibetan autonomy? Dismantle the enabling oil deals with Khartoum? Allow freedom of the Press? I imagine no to all of these.
So what then can we hope for as the wattage of opening day intensifies, and the protests become louder and more frequent? Can we count on the Olympics becoming that unexpected Trojan horse of new reform from within the Bird’s Nest? Ideally, we can hope that the Olympics will do what it does best; focus the world’s attention to a stage that honors the far reach of human potential over adversity. That potent display of possibility is generally unscripted, which Beijing may not be prepared for. And because of this, I will be watching come August.
0 comments:
Post a Comment