15 replies to this topic

[Mary]

What do you think of the ongoing protests taking place during this year's  Olympic torch relay?  

Do you think that there should be a boycott of the games?

[Mary]

Some more background information on what's been transpiring as of late...
---------------------
IOC chief: Olympics in 'crisis' over torch chaos
Rogge tells China to respect vow to improve human rights, open up media

Associated Press

BEIJING - IOC president Jacques Rogge said Thursday the turmoil surrounding the Beijing torch relay and the politically charged buildup to the Summer Games posed a "crisis'' for the Olympic movement.

Rogge urged China to respect its "moral engagement'' to improve human rights and to fulfill promises of greater media freedom. He reaffirmed the right of free speech for athletes at the Beijing Games.

At the same time, the International Olympic Committee expressed relief that the San Francisco leg of the torch relay passed off without major incident and declared that the rest of the international route would not be cut short or canceled.

"This scenario is definitely not on the agenda,'' Rogge said at a news conference. "We are studying together with (Beijing organizers) to improve the torch relay, but there is no scenario of either interrupting or bringing (the torch) back directly to Beijing.''

‘Not the joyous party’
Rogge said the San Francisco relay had "fortunately'' avoided much of the turmoil and disruptions that had marred the legs in London and Paris.

"It was, however, not the joyous party that we had wished it to be,'' he said at the opening of a two-day IOC executive board meeting in Beijing. "Athletes in many countries are in disarray and we need to reassure them. Our major responsibility is to offer them the games they deserve. ... We have 120 days to achieve this.''

The San Francisco parade route was changed and shortened to prevent disruptions by massive crowds of anti-China protesters. The planned closing ceremony at the waterfront was canceled and moved to San Francisco International Airport, where the flame was put directly on a plane and not displayed.

Still, IOC officials were grateful that there had been no violence.

"I'm very, very happy because there was no injuries,'' IOC executive board member Gerhard Heiberg of Norway said. "We were afraid of that. That didn't happen, so this was a very good result.''

'It is a crisis'
The turmoil over the torch relay and the growing international criticism of China's policies on Tibet and Darfur and overall human rights record have turned the Beijing Games into one of the most contentious in recent history and presented the IOC with one its toughest tests.

"It is a crisis, there is no doubt about that,'' Rogge said. "But the IOC has weathered many bigger storms.''

He cited the attack on Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics and the boycotts of the 1976, 1980 and 1984 Games.

"The history of the Olympic Games is fraught by a lot of challenges,'' Rogge said. "This is a challenge but you cannot compare to what we had in the past.''

Rogge was asked whether he had second thoughts about awarding the games to Beijing seven years ago.

"I've said that it is very easy with hindsight to criticize the decision,'' he said. "It's easy to say now that this was not a wise and a sound decision.''

‘Moral engagement’ with China
But Rogge insisted that Beijing had "clearly the best bid'' and offered the strong pull of taking the Olympics to a country with one-fifth of the world's population.

"That was the reasoning for awarding the bid to Beijing.''

When Beijing was bidding for the games, Rogge noted, Chinese officials said the Olympics would help advance social change, including human rights. He called it a "moral engagement'' and stressed there was no "contractual promise whatsoever'' on human rights in the official host city contract.

"I would definitely ask China to respect this moral engagement,'' Rogge said.

Asked about the comment, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said IOC officials support adhering to the Olympic Charter and "not bringing any irrelevant political factors into the Beijing Olympics.''

"I hope the IOC officials will continue to adhere to the principles set by the Olympic charter,'' Jiang Yu said.

IOC holds discussions with Wen
Rogge reported having "very frank and open discussions'' with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on a range of Olympic issues Wednesday, but declined to give details.

The IOC leader insisted that "a number of important points have been met'' on human rights, including a new Chinese law enacted on Jan. 1, 2007, that removed many restrictions on foreign journalists. But he said the law had not been fully implemented and he was urging Chinese officials to do so "as soon as possible.''

Rogge refused to be drawn on the prospect of top world leaders snubbing the Beijing opening ceremony. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and German Chancellor Angela Merkel will not be attending the opening, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy is considering staying away. U.S. Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have called on President Bush to boycott the ceremony.

"Politicians have to make their decisions themselves,'' Rogge said. "The IOC will not intervene in this matter.''

More torch demonstrations expected
The torch is headed to Buenos Aires, Argentina, and then to a dozen other countries. The relay also is expected to face demonstrations in New Delhi and possibly elsewhere on its 21-stop, six-continent tour before arriving in mainland China on May 4. The Olympics begin Aug. 8.

Rogge sought to reassure athletes that they are free to express their political opinions — as long as they do so away from official Olympic venues in Beijing.

Rogge said free expression has been enshrined in the Olympic Charter for more than 40 years as a "basic human right.'' However, the charter also forbids any "demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda'' in any Olympic sites or venues.

"I'm very clear on the fact that athletes have ample opportunities to express themselves without hindrance, but just by respecting the sacred environment of the Olympic village, the Olympic venues the podium and so forth,'' he said.

Rogge said athletes should use "common sense'' in complying with the rules.

"There is absolutely no problem for an athlete to express his or her views in an interview with media people,'' he said. "This can be done in his or her own country before the games. This can be done in the host country of the Olympics during the games and, of course, after the games. The only thing we ask is there should be no propaganda or demonstrations of political, religious and racial origin.''

At the news conference, Rogge suggested that athletes would be free to speak on political issues at news conferences at the main media center and the "mixed-zone'' areas at the venues where reporters have access to athletes as they leave the field of play.

[bizaleth]

Frank DeFord was talking about this on NPR's Morning Edition yesterday, and I have to agree wit what he said. The IOC should never, ever have chosen China for the Olympics. Both for political and environmental reasons. As far as I am concerned, this falls on them. I think people have every right to protest the torch as a way to speak out against what the IOC did.

I know some have talked about politicians (inlcuding George W Bush) boycotting the opening ceremonies. I don't have a problem with that. But I do think the games themselves should be left alone. Jimmy Carter boycotted the Summer Olympics in Moscow as a way to make a Cold War statement--I don't think he should have don that, and I don't think we should do that now (a few have mentioned it) because the games shouldn't be politicized.

[mnkcarp]

I've heard some debate over whether people are ethical for using the Olympics as a venue to protest.  The argument was that the Olympics are the one time countries can come together and put politics aside in the spirit of athletic competition...  

I don't buy that for a minute - coming together with a country means accepting that country, legitimizing that country - to do that while people are getting oppressed and killed as a result of the actions of the host country is to turn a deaf ear and blind eye to the human rights of those people...

I think you get what I'm trying to say - I'm not getting consecutive minutes to think here so it's not congealing into a very coherent statement, but I support the protests.

Were there not years and years of preparation involved I'd say the IOC should move the games, but it's not practical, and it would be shattering to the single-minded lives of the athletes to boycott the games altogether, but I don't think we should waste the world's attention and pretend China's all good...

[kohoutekdriver8]

I just think the Olympics is a concept whose time has come and long gone.

:(

[pebbles]

bizaleth said:

Frank DeFord was talking about this on NPR's Morning Edition yesterday, and I have to agree wit what he said. The IOC should never, ever have chosen China for the Olympics. Both for political and environmental reasons. .

I totally agree with this sentiment.

As far as the protests now that the games ARE going to be in China....

I completely support the protests and why they are happening, it's important for the people of the world to be able to speak out on this matter.  Sometimes our governments seem like they will sweep all of the bad things under a rug for the sake of diplomatic relations and trade, and I think people are right to be upset by what goes on in China.

However, some of the protests have gotten violent, and after all that I really don't know what good it will all do in the end.  CBC has reporters IN China and we have been given ongoing confirmation that nothing (and I mean NOTHING) about any protests or concerns at all is getting through to the Chinese people.  The government is maintaining its iron-fisted control.  Maybe what we need to be doing is lobbying our governments and also the IOC that human rights and the environment DO matter and will be issues that for many, trump the "It's about the athletes" card.  

It's never been "just" about the athletes.  Nobody has a problem with that when journalists cover aspects of a host nation that are positive.  It only gets said when there are serious concerns about a Host nation expressed by the general population.

[Kelly A]

mnkcarp said:

I've heard some debate over whether people are ethical for using the Olympics as a venue to protest.  The argument was that the Olympics are the one time countries can come together and put politics aside in the spirit of athletic competition...  

I don't buy that for a minute - coming together with a country means accepting that country, legitimizing that country - to do that while people are getting oppressed and killed as a result of the actions of the host country is to turn a deaf ear and blind eye to the human rights of those people...

Don't we legitimize the countries just as much by inviting them to the competition, even when they're not the host? Why aren't there protests for every Olympics?

I guess I do believe that there is some benefit to this interaction, that we can learn a bit about each other. I don't feel that the athletes should be pawns in the political interaction between nations.

[Driver Eight]

Mary said:

What do you think of the ongoing protests taking place during this year's  Olympic torch relay?  

Do you think that there should be a boycott of the games?

A couple of thoughts:

1. I am very glad that China is getting a whopper of a black eye for their oppression of the people of Tibet. I have never understood why they won't just let these people live in peace. In my relative ignorance, I cannot help but wonder if the Beijing regime believes there's gold - or some other treasure, be it rare metals or God-knows-what - in them thar hills. Otherwise, why would they pester these poor, peaceful people living in such a remote, isolated place? Anyhow, all the gold in the world wouldn't justify their treatment of the quiet, peaceable people of Tibet, and they, forgive the language, just sound like assholes trying to brand the Dali Lama as some violent renegage. Just asinine. For all the above reasons, I very much support the protesters in their efforts to educate the world about China's treatment of the Tibetan people and to embarrass the Chinese dictators for same.

2. As to Olympic boycotts, I have mixed feelings. I hate to see the Olympics boycotted by nations' teams, as the athletes work awfully hard for them. I think better are symbolic boycotts such as heads of state refusing to attend and denunciations of the conduct. I also would love to see leaders of several nations and, better yet, of sponsoring corporations, address Beijing directly on these issues.

I, again, find confounding that China's government feels the need to engage in this course of conduct. Utterly nonsensical. ...

-CS

[Driver Eight]

bizaleth said:

Frank DeFord was talking about this on NPR's Morning Edition yesterday, and I have to agree wit what he said. The IOC should never, ever have chosen China for the Olympics. Both for political and environmental reasons. As far as I am concerned, this falls on them. I think people have every right to protest the torch as a way to speak out against what the IOC did.

Fair enough, but under Bush/Cheney we are much worse than China on global warming, to name only one environmental issue, and just about as intransigent. Maybe we shouldn't have gotten the Atlanta and Salt Lake Olympics, but we did.

bizaleth said:

I know some have talked about politicians (inlcuding George W Bush) boycotting the opening ceremonies.

Bush will never boycott these olympics. Never. He is too close to too many people who have too much money at stake. The best we can hope for from him is that he and his team make some back-channel noises to Beijing to the effect of "cool it guys, you're making us all look bad." If it comes to any more than that, I will be shocked.

-CS

[Driver Eight]

pebbles said:

However, some of the protests have gotten violent, and after all that I really don't know what good it will all do in the end.  CBC has reporters IN China and we have been given ongoing confirmation that nothing (and I mean NOTHING) about any protests or concerns at all is getting through to the Chinese people.  The government is maintaining its iron-fisted control.

I have heard reports on NPR and the BBC radio that they feel that, especially if heads of state and other dignitaries don't come to the opening and/or other closing ceremonies, it will be impossible to hide this, and its significance, from the Chinese public. I gather, as well, that well-to-do Chinese, the entrepreneurial and professional classes, know a lot more about the outside world than Beijing would like for them to. What this might lead to, if anything, is unclear, though. ...

[mnkcarp]

Kelly A said:

Don't we legitimize the countries just as much by inviting them to the competition, even when they're not the host? Why aren't there protests for every Olympics?

I guess I do believe that there is some benefit to this interaction, that we can learn a bit about each other. I don't feel that the athletes should be pawns in the political interaction between nations.

I guess we legitimize them, but I wouldn't say just as much, as hosting the Olympics is a huge deal - gives a country a platform to show itself off to the world.  There's a pretty huge difference, for instance, between having the Olympics in Harare and seeing three Zimbabwe runners hoisting their flag at the opening ceremonies... I get your point, though - if we wait for the world to be perfect, we wouldn't have Olympics at all.  That's why I'm saying don't boycott, but I support the protests.

[onemaptwolegend]

Yep. Chinese people -all 20 gazillion of them- are supine, dumb, but their government is ruthless, wicked and evil! Beijing=Angband. It's time people rose up and freed Tibet from the Himalayas.

[Driver Eight]

onemaptwolegend said:

Yep. Chinese people -all 20 gazillion of them- are supine, dumb, but their government is ruthless, wicked and evil! Beijing=Angband. It's time people rose up and freed Tibet from the Himalayas.

Are you sure your location is Earth? ;)

[Zither]

One interesting point to make is that the idea of the Olympic Torch Relay was founded for the 1936 Berlin Olympics by our good friends the Nazis. Sense the irony today of people protesting against it being carried to a totalitarian regime of China. The fact is also about all this "Olympic" spirit that promotes equality etc is the word "Olympics" basically means "no women".

One other thing being broadcast and people pitching in with is that sport and politics don't mix. Hang on, there's been numerous Olympic Games that have been boycotted ie. Moscow '80 and La '84 to name but a few. Those so called nations who believe in human rights simply won't boycott as it would be economically a bad ploy, especially in a time of the "credit crunch".

[DericksHam]

the world markets seem to be just recovering from the "subprime" problem.  maybe that explains why there's no government body boycotting the games. or maybe china already exports to every place in the world, that no country could do without them.

i read an article about the chinese mainland gov urging people not to boycott french products over the tibet protests, because carrefour alone carries 95% chinese products. china boycotting against any foreign company or product would just be boycotting against their own stuff.

too much of a farce. how about, at least, renaming the games to "the why can't everybody get along !?!? swedish(or swiss) games". the torch relay should stay even with its nazi association. the nazis had good sense to hire good PR people. the relay's a very good promotional stunt which turned into a international tradition. it's like secular x'mas. or fucking valentine's day.

[Mary]

Thought this was kind of interesting, in a very speculative/superstitious sort of way...
----------------
'Curse of the Fuwa' fulfilled by floods
Internet curse involves Beijing's Olympic mascots



Reuters
updated 6:44 p.m. CT, Thurs., June. 19, 2008

BEIJING - Floods sweeping southern China seem to have fulfilled the final stanza of an Internet curse involving Beijing's Olympic mascots, but censors have been quick to remove postings that might fuel the superstition.

After a devastating earthquake struck Sichuan province last month, Internet users tied four of the five "Fuwa" mascots to the calamities that have struck China in the run-up to the Games, which begin in August. One Fuwa is a panda, the totem of Sichuan.

The others resemble a torch, reminding netizens of the protests against the international Olympic torch rally; a Tibetan antelope tied to widespread demonstrations in Tibetan areas; and a swallow that looks like a kite, linked to a deadly train crash in Shandong province.

The final Fuwa, sporting a fish, was left unexplained in the original superstition as a curse yet to come.

Unexplained, that is, until widespread flooding in southern and central China claimed dozens of lives in June.

"I am in Shenzhen. There is heavy rain for two days and no sign that it will stop... now the curse of the last "fish" has proven correct. What shall we do?" said a post by yellow_hades on Tianya, a popular online forum.

That and similar posts have disappeared quickly this week. China's censors monitor the Internet carefully and remove any posts deemed inflammatory or not in line with government policy.

Major calamities, earthquakes in particular, were viewed in imperial China as a sign that a dynasty had lost the mandate of Heaven.

Although the Communist Party has tried to stamp out "feudal superstition" since it took power in 1949, the Beijing Games will start on the auspicious moment of 8:08 p.m., on August 8 2008. Eight is a lucky number in Chinese.