Political games shame the Olympic ideal and do nothing for human rights in China

As the Olympic flame is lit for the Beijing Games amid protests about human rights abuses in Tibet, the world again is talking of an Olympic boycott – and it’s wrong. Olympic boycotts are never about solving problems; they are about symbolism and posturing and have little or no practical effect other than generating feelings of moral superiority.

Tibet is not a new issue – despite the recent increase in media attention. Even if we ignore China’s claims of unbroken sovereignty going back to the 13th century, the current unrest goes back to the invasion by the Chinese army in 1951. The timing of the Tibetan uprising is no coincidence, designed to bring their plight to the attention of a global audience drawn by the approaching Olympics, but they are not highlighting a new problem.

So we return to the prospect of another Olympic Games being sullied by the grubby intervention of spineless political types in lieu of taking action that may have some tangible impact. The world has had over half a century to do something about Tibet or any other of China’s human rights transgressions but has simply stood by, muttering its disapproval.

The Olympics are a soft target and a boycott, while continuing to trade and maintaining diplomatic relations, is cowardice on a grand scale. This is not to defend China’s action in any way – their record is dreadful on many grounds, but they are improving, and embarrassing them on their own stage risks that ongoing improvement.

Denying them the Olympics in the first place might have had more impact, but awarding the Games and then threatening not to turn up smacks very loudly of hypocrisy.

Besides, sport has a way of undoing the most carefully laid plans of those looking to use the Games to further their own agenda at the expense of the Olympic spirit.

The 1936 Berlin Olympics were to showcase the might and superiority of Hitler’s Germany but a humble black American upstaged them all. Jesse Owens’ performance is still regarded as one of the most powerful arguments for competing in the Olympic Games.

Even more powerful, but less often discussed, is the part played by Luz Long, a tall, blonde German long jumper, who offered friendly advice to Owens to help him reach the final, which he ultimately went on to win at the expense of Long. Long’s act of selflessness in defiance of Hitler is the ultimate embodiment of the Olympic spirit.

Tommy Smith and John Carlos used their medal presentation ceremony to give the Black Power salute at the 1968 Mexico Olympics. They were subsequently expelled from the Olympic village and condemned by the IOC and the US government for politicising the Olympics, but their protest struck a chord.

The dreadful events of the Munich Olympics, that saw the slaughter of 11 Israeli athletes, was countered by the stunning performance of Mark Spitz, a Jewish swimmer who won seven gold medals. While Spitz’s feats will never erase the terrorists’ barbarous acts, it provided a positive highlight when needed most.

Boycotts simply don’t work. Nations do not change their behaviour in the face of international blackmail, and China is no different. Can anyone remember the reasons behind the boycotts of Melbourne (1956), Munich (1972) or Montreal (1976)? Did they have any effect whatsoever?

The tit-for-tat nonsense that went on around the Moscow (1980) and Los Angeles (1984) Games are a shameful example of the futility of boycotts. The American-led boycott of Moscow was in protest against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Nine years later the Soviets finally left Afghanistan but have since been replaced by the Americans – didn’t that work well?

Those who suggest that it is not only right, but also essential to ask athletes to support a hollow protest have no concept of the sacrifices they make. Sponsors and organising committees are fair game, but the athletes are innocent in these matters. Of course, any athlete has the right to make a personal protest and refuse to compete on moral grounds. It will be interesting to see how many – if any – choose to go down that path.

We should also examine the histories of those who condemn China’s actions with self-righteous indignation. When Owens returned home in triumph, as an example, it was to a country where he was considered a second-class citizen.

Human rights issues are all about perspective and no one boycotted the 1932 Los Angeles Olympics over the way that black Americans were treated. That injustice took over 30 more years to work through.

That is not meant to denigrate the Americans, but to point out that nations change and evolve. It is overly simplistic to suggest that any country is universally evil – or good for that matter – and that they are unable to change. The Olympics are about emphasising what is good in a country and it is those things that should be built upon.

Let the athletes make the points that need to be made in Beijing. Their actions will speak louder and clearer than any boycott, and being there allows them the opportunity to make a difference for everyone to see. Does anyone really imagine that a boycott would get much airplay in China? It’s much harder to ignore someone on your doorstep than in a land far away.