The Degeneration of the Olympic Rings

Analysis of the 2008 Olympic Games and China's human rights situation

Compared to the pride Bejing had eight years ago upon securing the 2008 Olympic Games, the present mood of the Chinese communist regime is anything but proud; for it is now mired in an embarrassing situation: the international community is offering a variety of activities aimed at boycotting the 2008 Olympics. There are even groups in Norway (which used to keep itself away from international political issues) supporting the multinational boycott. The Chinese communist regime finds it most unbearable that their country's own people have participated in these activities. One example is the 3,000 farmers in Qinghua Village, Fujin City in China's Heilongjiang Province who have signed a petition "against the Olympics and in support of human rights."

It has been only seven years since Beijing won its Olympics bid in 2001. Since the mythic charm of China's outstanding economy hasn't faded away, why does the international community hold a dramatically different impression of this country? By analyzing various Olympics' boycott slogans, we observe that China's refusal to honor its previous promises and abandonment of justice fueled this widespread endeavor. Seven years ago the Chinese communist regime pledged to address its appalling human rights record in order to host the 2008 Olympics. But when China was awarded the Games, the regime did little to improve its worsening human rights situation. On the contrary, an increase in political pressure and a more powerful network of secret agents have made a bad situation even worse.


I. The Olympics' Boycott Resulted from China's Refusal to Honor Previous Promises
China's attitude toward the boycott turned itself into a laughing stock. The Chinese communist regime often stops those who speak out against the regime by charging these individuals with political offences, such as "endangering national security," "governmental subversion" and "illegally leaking state secrets." These critics often end up behind bars for their offences. But when it comes to the subject of the boycott, China has uncharacteristically depoliticized the issue, demanding that the international community not to politicize the Olympics. One example is a professor quoted on China's state-run media that those who mixed the Olympics with politics "totally misunderstood the spirit of the Olympics." This report went on to explain that the boycott organized by America and 60 other nations against the Moscow Olympics was nothing more than "a slapstick comedy." In reality, the highly politicized Chinese communist regime is the least qualified to demand that others keep a distance from politics.

In July, 2001 in Moscow when placed its bid for the Olympics, China was determined to win the Games at any cost. To silence dissenting voices, China promised the International Olympic Committee and its opponents that if it were awarded the 2008 Olympics, China would better its human rights situation. But in the past few years, China's human rights situation has not improved, but is instead worsening. Headquartered in Paris, France, Reporters Without Borders has been paying close attention to China's human rights situation. A dominant force for the boycott against the Olympics, Reporters Without Borders has continued to criticize China's tight control over public opinion and has protested the regime's backlash toward those who've severely criticized the regime. In order to silence Reporters Without Borders, in January 2007, Chinese authorities invited Robert Menard, general secretary of Reporters Without Borders, and Vincent Brosse, director of the organization's Asia office, to visit China. During their visit, Chinese officials promised they would better their human rights situation, but they were lying through their teeth, and Reporters Without Borders was deceived into disbanding its boycott.

While in China, Menard made ten demands for improving freedom of the press. He made particular mention of the repeated demand for the release of imprisoned reporters and dissidents who were charged with political offenses for posting articles critical of the regime on the Internet. The list included over 100 dissidents, reporters and defenders for freedom of speech. Menard singled out those with the poorest health, the oldest, and individuals who had been imprisoned for longest time. Chinese authorities promised that "there was no problem with the release," and further specified the date of either release or visitation rights would be granted. In addition, China pledged that Reporters Without Borders could establish a base in the country, and the regime promised to lift the ban imposed on certain websites.

But seven months after this meeting, China failed to fulfill any of its promises. Reporters Without Borders had no choice but to launch a new campaign. The director of Reporters Without Borders wrote to the International Olympic Committee demanding that China enforce its previous promise to address its appalling human rights record. As the signature image of its new campaign, Reporters Without Borders designed a logo of five interlinked handcuffs in place of the Olympic rings. The newly designed logo symbolizes that the Chinese communist regime has turned the country into an enormous jail; it reflects deprivation of freedom from which Chinese people have been suffering.


II. The Boycott Against the 2008 Olympics is Endowed with Political Justice and Moral Nobility.

Compared with other boycotts in history, the boycott against the 2008 Olympics has two distinguishing features:

To begin with, international human rights groups like Amnesty International—with supporters from all walks of life, ranging from politicians, social celebrities, to ordinary college students—have called for this boycott. They are the driving force behind this initiative. The Australia-based Human Rights Union—consisting of many former Canadian political heavyweights, California Congressman Tom Lantos, former Canadian Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific David Kilgour, and French presidential candidate Segolene Royal have all expressed support for this effort.

Yet it is United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) Ambassador Mia Farrow who lends the boycott its muscle. In her article published in the Wall Street Journal on March 28, 2007, she condemned China for propping up the regime of Sudan, which "in turn caused the genocide in Darfur." Additionally, she dubbed the Games "the Genocide Olympics," and called for a boycott. Furthermore, she wrote another article, singling out distinguished director Steven Spielberg, who had arrived in Beijing in mid-March to help Beijing promote the Olympics. She questioned whether Spielberg had any idea that China's bloody money was behind the genocide in Darfur. Spielberg responded to her accusation by contacting China's leader Hu Jintao, condemning the genocide in Darfur, and urging Beijing to exert its influence on Sudan so as to "end the suffering of people there."

Currently, Canada is the nation that lends the most powerful voice to the call for a boycott. Even Canadian college students support the boycott—of all the student groups participating in this effort, the Students' Union of Simon Fraser University in Canada are the most active in support of the boycott. Judging from the many organizations mentioned, we can conclude that boycott supporters are not limited to what the Chinese communist regime calls the "anti-China forces"— right wing Japanese, Falun Gong, or the Taiwanese independence group, nor are the supporters the so-called "vulgar figures" who intend to acquire fame through this endeavor.

Secondly, the reason for boycotting the Beijing Olympics has nothing to do with the personal interest of the advocates. Instead, the concern is for the human rights situation for the Chinese people and cooperation between the Chinese communist regime and the Sudanese authorities. Boycott advocates simply can't tolerate the human rights infringement in China, Sudan and Zimbabwe, etc. In other words, the boycott against the Beijing Olympics is the most justified Olympics boycott in history in terms of morality. Those who participate in the boycott are not motivated by personal interest, they have simply seen evidence of abuse. This includes videos of Chinese farmers who are fiercely beaten by baton wielding police, military forces and mafia who take their orders from local officials who wish to punish the farmers who resist the regime's forcible levy on their land. These advocates also know that that the regime can, without notice, evict Chinese people from their homes in the name of improving the city. Disgusted by these Chinese authorities, known by some as the "enemy of the Internet", these advocates sympathize with the ordinary Chinese individuals who are imprisoned for publishing their opinions online. They are also aware that China is the largest source of human organs in the world, and realize the cruelty and inhumanity used in the all too common practice of forcible abortion. These advocates also know that, in addition to the violence against human beings, many animals are unnecessarily maltreated in China. Due to the above evidence, boycott advocates aim to express a magnificent wish through their actions: facilitate the improvement of human rights for the people who live in a country that most of them have not visited.

When compared with the group dumping waste water at boycott activities, boycott advocates have demonstrated a high degree of morality. Even Chinese authorities have to admit that those dumping waste water in protest of boycott activities merely acted out of their own interests. In the April 7, 2007 a Global Times article, "Individual Politicians Coerce China, Threatening to Boycott Beijing's Olympics but Receive Little Support Among Western Media," one Chinese official said, "China is an economically strong country now. Many countries and companies have focused their interests here and watch what they need to do to maintain a good relationship with China." The statement says it all. Other than the attraction of benefits, the Chinese communist regime is fully aware that it has no moral inspiration.

The Olympics boycott among Chinese people is especially rare but thoroughly commendable. Despite the pressure imposed by secret agencies and police, a petition signed by farmers in Heilongjiang exclaims, "We want human rights! Not Olympics," indicating that these citizens refuse to tolerate a miserable life for the sake of this spectacle.


III. Chinese Realization: Human Rights Are More Important than Gold Medals and Olympics

Public opinion in China has been highly critical of "Gold Medal Politics" ever since the 2004 Olympics.

Through years of propaganda and ideological education, the Chinese communist regime has been inculcating a political illusion that winning Olympic gold medals equates to building China's might and prosperity. Consider that the political agenda pursued by this regime has been one focused on building the country's prestige and military power. Even the "economic development" emphasized since the reforms aims at strengthening the country, not enriching the people. Human rights are not a factor included in their political considerations. Therefore, the Chinese regime holds a specious understanding that the Olympics are an opportunity to showboat their power and grab international recognition. Winning a great number of gold medals or hosting an Olympics Games are considered key strategies to promoting China's international prestige and fortifying domestic harmony. The regime keeps propagandizing that, in hosting an Olympics Games, a feat that led to Japan and Korea becoming modernized countries, they will bring a bright future to China. China's so-called "Gold Medal Politics," unseen elsewhere, is thus shaped under such a political environment. On July 29, 1984 when Xu Haifeng won the first gold medal at the Los Angeles Olympics after China was away from the Olympics for 28 years, the Chinese general public was overcome with elation. A news report titled "Glory of Gun Shot at Prado" written by Sun Jie for the China Youth Daily was later selected into the elementary school text book. Since then, the allure of the Olympic gold medal made its impression into the mind of a new generation and became a vital part of the Chinese dream for a strong country. An "Olympic Complex" became one of the important tools for the Chinese regime to agglomerate public support. Many Chinese (including a lot of overseas Chinese) consider one's support of Beijing's Olympic as a patriotic action. When Beijing was elected as the host city for the Olympics in 2001, a lot of Chinese thought the country's international prestige would be greatly enhanced.

However, the real outcome of this "gold-medal" policy towards physical education did not in fact improve the overall physical health of the nation. Save for a number of athletes becoming gold medal laureates through taxpayer money and the group of officials that personally benefited from the program, the general public would never see how the number of Olympic gold medals had anything to do with their quality of life. In the 2004 Olympics, China became the second leading gold-medal winning country. As officials celebrated the achievement, public opinion in China, which the regime gave little notice, took critical stance toward the "Olympic Complex." The so-called "gold-medal" policy was criticized by many. The criticism can be summarized as follows.

1. Suspicion Of "Gold-Medal" Policy: Does It Really Benefit The General Public?

China's athletes won 32 gold medals in the 2004 Olympics, trailing closely behind USA's 35. Considering the promise of the "Olympic Complex," Chinese people should feel happy and proud at this achievement. However, Chinese citizens, as they began to awake, were not excited by the Olympic glory—they noticed that the enormous investment the regime made in pursuing gold medals at the expense of public welfare did not equal what their former Soviet neighbors produced with a comparatively lesser sacrifice. The total number of gold medals won by Russia and eight other former Soviet republics including Ukraine, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Lithuania reached 45 (the total number of medals was 162), actually a greater number than the top ranking USA. Originally, Chinese people felt the regime's gold-medal policy was justified, as the Soviet Union was employing a similar strategy. However, these countries have become democratized and can no longer rely on an autocratic allocation of resources to chase Olympic gold. That is, their gold medal achievement was driven by athletes themselves. And as for the U.S. Olympic team, Chinese people have become aware that, except for a few profitable sports that are able to support professional athletes by drawing a substantial number of TV viewers, almost all U.S. competitors are amateurs who must balance their athletic aspirations with another career. In a significant contrast, China's athletes are all professionals supported by tax dollars.

Chinese people also understand that China is not a sports giant in the world even though its athletes have won lot of Olympic medals. Among the top 10 gold-medal-winning countries, there is an average of one gold medal for every one million people with some country-to-country variation. The disparity becomes clear when you consider that the ratio is a gold medal for every 2.85 million people in USA and 20.59 million people in China. Ironically, Chinese people also realize that Chinese students who study abroad cannot compete with their classmates in sports because their regime does not provide free public sports facilities for the general public.

Chinese people are well aware of what's happening around them: Their country's education industry is so backward that about 50 million children are unable go to school; the regime's outstanding debt for the social pension fund reaches one trillion yuan (US $125 billion) which accounts for half of China's GDP, leaving many retirees without their pension. Many cannot afford to get sick since the regime's "medical insurance reform" project has minimized the funding of the social welfare system and most Chinese people simply do not have the money to see a doctor. While many in the country live below poverty, the Chinese regime squanders large sums of money cultivating gold medal athletes in hopes of raising China's international image. Is it in the interest of Chinese people, and is it consistent with common people's wishes?

2. How Much Does Each Gold Medal Cost?

An article entitled "A Warning of the Pitfall in Olympic Gold Medals" has further echoed this sentiment. The author revealed a shocking number: After the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, the business expenditure of China's General Administration of Sport went from three billion yuan (about $400 million) to a staggering five billion yuan (about $500 million). To this end, China had spent some 20 billion yuan ($2.5 billion) during the four years preparing for the Athens Olympic Games. If we suppose that China garnered 30 gold medals (in fact it was 32) in Athens, the cost for each gold medal was about 700 million yuan ($90 million), which might be the most expensive gold medal in the world. Bao Mingxiao, director of the Institute of Physical Science under the General Administration of Sports, stated that it was not right to include all the General Administration of Sports' expenditures into the cost for the gold medals. He added that on average, the Chinese regime spends between 4 million yuan ($500 000) to 5 million yuan ($600 000) in expenses for an Olympic medalist. As the Chinese Olympic delegation is composed of 400 athletes, the aggregate investment would be between 1.6 billion yuan ($0.2 billion) and 2 billion yuan ($0.25 billion). If the figure is divided by 32, the number of gold medals garnered, each gold medal may cost between 50 million yuan ($6 million) to 60 million yuan ($7.5 million).

Originally, Bao Mingxiao intended to clarify that the cost for each gold medal was not as much as 700 million yuan ($90 million), but even a figure of between between 50 million yuan ($6 million) to 60 million yuan ($7.5 million) is by no means small change.

What was most ironic to the Chinese people is that the 2004 Olympic Games coincided with the beginning of China's school semester. At that time the media reported many cases of children from poor families being unable afford to pay their tuition, which ranged from several hundred to several thousand yuan. Because of this, many children and parents committed suicide throughout the country. On one hand, many of China's social elite traveled to Athens to enjoy a relaxing and cheerful excursion at the Olympic Games; on the other, many of China's poor committed suicide out of frustration due to the high cost in tuition. As China's poor suffered and struggled, those gold medals inevitably lost their sparkle. As a result, many have wondered if it is worthwhile to handsomely award athletes and let officials squander public funds overseas under the guise of Olympics. A 2004 audit revealed the scandal of the General Administration of Sport's appropriation of funds exclusively designated for the Olympic Games, the money being used instead to build mansions. The scandal further stoked the people's doubt and criticism. As a result, some bloggers expressed their discontent by claiming that a lot of China's corruption has occurred under the guise of the Olympics.

Between gold medals and people's livelihood, which one is more important? The split on this issue is so serious that many people whose awareness has been raised have bitterly exclaimed, "We want human rights rather than the Olympic Games."


Conclusion: Only Countries That Respect Human Rights Will Be Respected By The World
It is only about one year or so before China hosts the 2008 Olympic Games. The Chinese regime has squandered a huge amount of money on expenditures that have nothing to do with people's livelihood and has inspired many complaints among the Chinese people. Because of this, it is very likely that China may follow in the footsteps of Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union, as these two former autocratic superpowers had also used the Olympic Games as a means to show off their "glory, greatness and correctness," but these two superpowers also collapsed less than ten years after hosting the Olympics. As these precedents are still vivid in our minds, the Chinese regime's refusal to acknowledge human rights may only trigger an early arrival of crises.

On April 30, 2007, Amnesty International released a 22-page report entitled "China: The Olympics Countdown—Repression Of Activists Overshadows Death Penalty And Media Reforms." The report made painfully clear that the purpose of the international society's support of China's hosting the 2008 Olympic Games was an effort to help improve the country's human rights. For this, the Beijing administration also promised to extensively improve China's human right situation. However, a recent investigation and assessment found that in preparing to host the Olympic Games, the Chinese regime has detained more people and sent more individuals to forced labor camps without trial, making for a situation that is even worse than before.

This report ruthlessly criticized China's deplorable human right situation, but due to the restraints of the article's length and the nature of the organization, it could only list some individual persecution cases against political prisoners and prisoners of conscience. In reality, the Chinese people's terrible living environment further underscores China's appalling human rights situation. The Shanxi Black Brick Kiln Incident—which saw many child slaves forced to work in an underground brick factory— merely represents a typical case which points to the collapse of China's countryside and the country's economically bankrupt farm villages. As similar incidents have occurred throughout China, it is by no means an isolated incident.

Given these examples, being a Chinese scholar with a conscience, I would like once again to urge the country to look at the following: Aside from getting rich and building up its military power, China should take human rights to be an integral part of its goal in becoming a superpower. A country may be famous for its military buildup and national finance, but if its people must work in a terrible environment and live under intense political pressure, no matter how many strategies China initiates to uplift its international image (such as hosting the Olympic Games), it will never win the world's respect, and it will never realize its dream of becoming a world leader.

In late July, 2007 in New Jersey, the United States.

By He Qinglian The Epoch Times 16 August 2007