One of the many results of Beijing 2008 was to bring communism back into Western political debate. Ever since the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989, it seems the West has viewed communism as something irrelevant; even Russia has seemingly embraced capitalism and become one of the wealthiest countries in the world. So why the sudden interest in China, and its restrictions on human liberties? Have we, the West, so far ignored the plight of many? Should we have done more to protect Tibetans and protesters from the grip of Chinese authorities? Or, was the anger raised at the Chinese authorities merely an expression of the age old ideological tension between communist and capitalist regimes?Certainly, the results of Beijing 2008 were extremely mixed; the opening ceremony was truly spectacular, leaving high expectations for 2012. Yet coupled with extravagant show, and national pride for us Brits, this year’s Olympics were certainly the most controversial of this decade, if not the century. Prior to this, the most talked about Olympics was Berlin 1983, if you’ll excuse the trite comparison.

 From miming singers to fake fireworks, to the more serious detainment of activists and censorship, Chinese authorities tried and failed to hide serious crimes against free speech and basic liberties. The ‘Free Tibet’ placards were as relevant a symbol of this year’s Olympics as the five-ringed insignia.

Amnesty International have already sparked debate about the morality of the International Olympics Committee (IOC), blaming it for ignoring basic human rights However, when China was granted the games back in 2001, one of their pleas was that through avowing to maintain the core human values of the Olympics, basic rights would improve. In practice this plea seems forgotten; political activists, such as Teng Biao and Li Heping were punished for insubordination, whilst websites containing information about sexually transmitted diseases were dismantled. At the closing of the Olympics, no word was given from Jacques Rogge, the Chairman of the committee, about the breaking of these promises, just that they were “exceptional games”.

But while highlighting crimes of the Chinese government and the IOC’s failure to rectify them is easy, providing solutions isn’t. Debate about the state of China and the annexation of Tibet inevitably leads us to moral relativism. It was clear from the displays of patriotism that many Chinese people accept and honour their regime, despite its failings which the West so readily highlights. Yet, of course, to others, Chinese communism is as oppressive as under Mao. What can the West do? Military action is unthinkable, and sanctions offered by the United Nations unworkable. Yet if we continue to put sport above human need and necessity, we are guilty of putting image above substance, allowing totalitarianism to conquer the basic principles of liberty which most of us, whether we have left or right wing views, hold deeply and take for granted.

Perhaps the best course of action is to focus on making London 2012 a success, to prove to the world, and to China, that democracies can produce as triumphant an Olympic games as dictatorships, that we can rival China without abusing rights, whilst presenting a picture of perfection to the outside world. The problem is China was seen as such a success, in terms of style and in national success, the next Olympics will probably pale in comparison.

Comment