Carry the torch

Jill Savitt: "Why aren't more people raising their voices?"

The Olympics are an appropriate forum for political gestures; I would argue, in fact, that the Olympics are a necessary forum for political speech.

The Olympic movement -- especially the International Olympic Committee -- claims that its goal is to put on a sporting event. President Bush said the same when asked whether he would attend. "I view the Olympics as a sporting event," the president said as he rejected the idea of a boycott.

But the Olympics is not a sporting event. The Super Bowl is a sporting event, and the World Series, the World Cup and the Tour de France. The Olympics, by charter, are something different: an international forum with a mandate to promote peace. The Olympic Charter says, "The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity."

The Olympics have been widely used as a political forum. China, in fact, has used the Games as a blunt political tool for 50 years, denying athletes from Taiwan the right to participate. The United States participated in -- even led -- a boycott of the Games and the IOC banned the delegation from South Africa during apartheid. Athletes have made statements or gestures from the medal platforms on a range of humanitarian and political issues.

With the Beijing Games, of course, it's been political from the start. The IOC and corporations defended awarding the Olympics to China because, they said, the Games would serve to open China to the world.

Read the full commentary here.

Dedicated to all the nonchalant governments with their "oh no, please don't politicize the Olympics" excuse. Seriously, who were they kidding? No global event can be purely non-political. Just pay attention in your history class! Throughout the entire time-line of the Olympics, almost every event had their share of political undertones, albeit in varying degrees. In fact, I was smirking at our own leaders' position on this touchy issue. Apparently, its a bad thing to boycott the Olympics because it deprives the athletes of their chance to compete, after training so hard! Wow, I didnt know it involved such tremendous sacrifices on our part! As if we were going to win any medals. Might as well stay home & save your lungs from the filthy pollution.

Okay, I digress. I'm not trying to boycott or sabotage the Beijing Olympics or anything like that. I'm somewhat amused at the torch relay disruptions and at the same time I respect these people who stand up for their beliefs. (Though I do not condone some of their extreme and violent methods.) I'm just very puzzled at the Chinese government's take on this Olympics fiasco. They merely showed the whole world how primitive their leadership style is. In fact, I can spell it out for you-
Rule #1. If there is any, any sign of dissent, no matter how small, send in the army! Slash & burn! Clean up later. Oh, in the meantime, control the media/press, block youtube & other forms of communications.
Rule #2. In all other circumstances, please refer to rule #1.

It appears that having a military clampdown is the only method they can use in dealing with popular uprisings. Doesn't it seem eerily reminiscent of the Tiananmen massacre? I'm sure the chinese leaders know that their actions would result in a massive condemnation from the global community? Especially when they are busy promoting China's "peaceful rise" via the Beijing Olympics 2008. Such tragic irony here.

Power corrupts. Yet another sterling example here, huh? By the way, its not just about Tibet's plight. China is guilty of supporting cruel military regimes in Darfur, as well as the one in Myanmar. WHY? I wouldn't know, but this does look like US and the dictator military regimes it propped up during the Cold War, despite its democracy rhetoric. Politics is dirty.