The Olympic torch has been dogged by protests this weekend as it has made its way through London and Paris. China’s government has responded predictably, saying that the protests were the work of a ‘few Tibetan separatists’ attempting to ‘sabotage’ the event. Spokespeople for the International Olympic Committee have lined-up with the Chinese government and decried the ‘politicisation’ of sport.

Alex Gilady, a IOC coordination commission member, said:

The important message is to tell our athletes that some people are trying to use them and to ride on their backs for solutions that the world has to find in other places like the United Nations.”

However, a recently produced report by Amnesty International shows that the ones using the Games as a political weapon are the Chinese government. It claims that the Chinese government is launching a systematic campaign to imprison activists ahead of the Games. It cites in particular the cases of Hu Jia and Yang Chunlin. Hu Jia has just recently been jailed for three and a half years for spreading

malicious rumors, libel and instigation in an attempt to subvert the state’s political and socialist systems.”

Jia, co-founder of the the Beijing Aizhixing Institute of Health Education, has been a repeated critic of the Chinese government. In November 2007, he participated via web-cam in a European Union parliamentary hearing in Brussels in which he stated that China had failed to fulfill its promises to improve human rights in the run-up to the Olympics. His trial lasted four hours and his lawyers were given one week to prepare his case. Representatives of foreign governments wishing to attend the trial were, according to diplomatic sources:

told that all seats had been ‘allocated’ and there was no space. On 18 March 2008, the same morning of the trial, they were given the contradictory information that seats had been ‘allocated’ to those that had arrived earlier the same day.”

Yang Chunlin who was detained by police on 6 July 2007 launched a petition under the slogan ‘We want human rights, not the Olympics’. Reports have claimed that he was tortured:

For six days in early August and one day in September 2007, his arms and legs were reportedly stretched and chained to the four corners of an iron bed so that he could not move. He was forced to eat, drink and defecate in that position. He was also reportedly forced to watch other detainees being subjected to similar treatment and to clean up their defecation.”

Claims of torture and abuse of activists riddle the report. Some are arrested tried and convicted of subversion like Jia and others are arrested and charged on spurious grounds. This is true in the case of Chen Guangcheng who is currently serving a four-year-and-three month sentence for ‘damaging property and blocking the traffic’ in Linyi city. No penalty points or license shredding, over four years in jail and do not pass go. Guangcheng campaigned against the authorities in Linyi “forced abortions and sterilizations which affected thousands of local women.”

Press Freedom

One of the fundamental guarantees sought by the International Olympic Committee upon granting China the games was that foreign media would be free both in the access they were allowed and in what they reported. However, we have seen a quite clear breach of that guarantee in the recent expulsion of foreign media from Tibet.

Amnesty’s report cites other examples of Chinese governments willingness to flout press freedom when it feels it is threatened. It mentions Ching Cheong, a journalist from Hong Kong who was sentenced on charges of spying for Taiwan. Despite being released on parole, Cheong claimed that he was subjected to “mental pressure” while in custody which was sever enough for him to “contemplate suicide”.

‘Cyber-dissidence’ is an increasing thorn in the side of Beijing. I myself have had experience of a Chinese friend of mine being unable to view my blog due to filtration. It is hard not to feel that the IOC’s concern for a smoothly run Olympics is blinding it to wider issues, note the phrase ‘during the games’. Laws lifting restrictions on foreign media will expire in October and as we have already seen there is absolutely no cast-iron guarantee that the Chinese government will give that it will respect it’s own rules that will be meaningful.

In effect this stance reflects that of the IOC throughout, to connive with the Chinese government with the sole aim of having a ‘good Games’. Events prior too and subsequent too the Games which point to a regime which systematically denies human rights are held to be of little import, all is meant to serve the greater good of the ‘Olympic ideal’.

Tarnished

Critics of those calling for, at the very least, a political boycott of the opening ceremony have decried an attempt to ‘politicise sport’. The Games already are political and it is the government in Beijing that politicised them by using them in this way; by cracking down on its opponents in an attempt to solidify and legitimise its rule. In response to the protests, Jacques Rogges the IOC’s president said that violence for whatever reasons was;

not compatible with the values of the torch relay or the Olympic games.”

So, we can reasonably conclude that it is not ok to protest but it is ok for the Chinese government to imprison and torture with impunity. How are the actions of the Chinese government in the run-up to the games ‘compatible’ with the values of the torch relay or the Games?

In addition to a boycott, national governments have to seriously consider mechanisms for the regulation of the IOC; if necessary by withdrawing teams if they fail to comply with there own standards. Serious questions need to be asked like how, for example, the Beijing games have placed “sport at the service of the harmonious development of man,” as the Olympic Charter says it’s goal should be.

Also, is sport the only ‘human right’ that the Olympic movement demands respect for or should it be taking the lead in asserting the primacy of the whole spectrum of human rights? Should it not be the case that respect for this full spectrum is a condition upon eligibility to host the games?

Under the heading of ‘Fundamental Principles of the Olympic movement’, the IOC’s own charter prohibits China, under it’s current regime, from even being part of the Olympic movement;

Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.”

How does the Chinese government adhere to these criteria in any way shape or form? In reality, these are all questions that the IOC has failed to answer. Calls for a political boycott and this weekends protests have arisen out of the IOC’s complete failure to adhere to the standards of the Olympic movement. They are not an ‘attack’ on the Olympics but an attack on a Games which is fast becoming an apologia for a brutal dictatorship; they are a legitimate response to the IOC’s failure as a governing body.

The Olympics should indeed be about higher ideals, about something bigger than ourselves. If they go ahead without serious protests by Western political leaders then it will not just be the reputation of the Olympics that is tarnished but also the reputation of the a West, whose credibility is already damaged by the Iraq fiasco, as a serious champion of human rights.