BYU NewsNet - Beijing Olympics: The Bigger Problem

Originally, there were five big contenders for the 2008 Olympics: Torino, Paris, Istanbul, Osaka and Beijing. Obviously Beijing won, thanks greatly to the efforts of a few key (and retiring) members of the International Olympic Committee. Resistance to the decision came almost instantly.

Many athletes and citizens all over the world objected to Beijing because of China's blatant disregard of human rights. In addition to grievances in their own country, the current conflict in Tibet and the Chinese connections to the genocide in Darfur make China the global bully of human rights. Protests were organized to ruin the torch's "journey of harmony," and now many are pushing for a boycott of the games altogether.

But a boycott misses the point. The real question is, with safe options like Torino, Paris, Istanbul and Osaka, why on earth would the Olympic committee pick Beijing? Why honor the nation whose citizens aren't free to travel without restrictions or speak freely without fear of imprisonment or death? And in the Olympic spirit of sportsmanship and camaraderie, why pick the country with the longest track record of human rights violations?

After Beijing won the bid, China Vice Premier Li Lanqing said the games would be "an example of the international recognition of China's social stability, economic progress and the healthy life of the Chinese people." But they haven't. So far the media spotlight summoned to Beijing by the approaching Olympics has done the opposite.

Reports from Beijing detail the government's efforts to improve conditions and, indirectly, human rights before the games. One measure is a mandate that police officers cease foul language, arrogance and hanging up on people who call to report crimes. Another government mandate involves a huge "relocation program" to make room for the games. Reports from the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions estimate that 1.5 million Chinese citizens will be displaced to hold the games. Approximately 300,000 will be evicted, and thousands more will be placed under a sort of house arrest during the games, forbidding them to leave their homes and add to the crowds.

Healthy life of the Chinese people and social stability indeed. These mandates affirm previous suspicions about horrendous disregard of human rights, not what the Chinese government wanted to highlight by hosting the Olympics.

Some people argue this is irrelevant. Many, including President Bush, have said the games are about athletics, not politics. Fine. Then why pick Beijing, the city suffocated with air pollution so badly that some days the sun doesn't rise? Why pick the nation with a shady past of unsafe food and tap water?

At current levels, Beijing's air pollution is two to three times higher than dubbed safe by the World Health Organization. British reports show this pollution will definitely have an impact on the athletes, especially in endurance events. Many countries are worried that the steroids used in animal meats will make their athletes test positive for steroid use. The United States is considering flying in food for its athletes from outside China. Japan and South Korea are taking their athletes to Beijing at the last possible minute to avoid as many of these problems as possible. Several other countries have established bases for their athletes far outside Beijing. Clearly, these conditions are detrimental for any Olympic hopeful.

If the games really are about athletics, then pick a location where the athletes can perform. If they're about more, like a symbol of world unity and camaraderie around common-place athletic events and ideals, then pick a place that exhibits at least a minor degree of respect for mankind. A boycott would be a Band-Aid. This issue needs a transplant.