The Ottawa Citizen: Beating dissidents an Olympic sport?

January 29, 2001

It's difficult for Canadians to fathom, but the 1988 Olympics in Seoul, South Korea were important for more than just the Ben Johnson doping scandal. Many have argued that by awarding such a prestigious international event to South Korea, the International Olympic Committee was expressing confidence in that country's future.

The presence of the summer games did bolster human rights and democracy there: In the months before they took place, leader Chun Doo-hwan, who enjoyed dictator-like powers, released more than 2,000 dissidents from jail, and stepped aside to clear the way for presidential elections. Score serious points for individual freedoms.

The question today is: If things worked out so well for South Korea back then, shouldn't they work for China now?

Perhaps. Beijing is thought to be the top contender among five cities, including Toronto, for the 2008 Summer Games. As the Chinese government never ceases to point out, the People's Republic lost its bid for the 2000 Games to Sydney, Australia by just two votes. The Chinese capital is optimistic that this time, it will not be a mere Olympic bridesmaid. In media reports, Chinese authorities have suggested that winning the games, much like winning membership in the World Trade Organization, would be important proof that China is an equal partner in the world, respected by the West, treated fairly by other powerful nations. Chinese leader Jiang Zemin wrote to IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch that giving Beijing the games would "be of great significance to the Olympic movement, to China and to the world at large."

No doubt it would be significant. But positively or negatively? Implied in Mr. Jiang's statement (at least it ought to be implied) is that China will act in a manner suitable to one of the world's most-admired sporting competitions. Given the record, that is a dubious assumption. The crackdown on innocent practitioners of Falun Gong hardly meets the standards of benevolence, fair play and tolerance that mark the Olympic spirit (if not its practice). Renewed paranoia by the regime over Tibet doesn't fit the tone of the Games either. Reputable human rights groups generally agree that for all China's superficial interest in UN human rights conventions, its actual rights record has slipped badly in the past two years -- not that it was something to boast about before. China's seriousness is about human rights is illustrated by its intention to stage the Olympic beach volleyball competition in Tiananmen Square, scene of the brutal 1989 crackdown on democracy supporters. This is the sort of "significance" awarding the Olympic Games to Beijing could end up having: global acquiescence in acts of an authoritarian regime that punishes its citizens brutally for thinking thoughts that aren't state-sanctioned.

That outcome, fortunately, need not be the significance of a Beijing-based games. The time (as some Canadian MPs have realized) has never been better to insist that China clean up its act. The MPs have urged Prime Minister Jean Chretien to raise human rights concerns loudly during his Feb. 9-18 Team Canada trip to China. If the Chinese thought they could placate this country with the release of one man, KunLun Zhang, from a prison camp recently, they were wrong, the MPs insist. Their public campaign will have a bit more clout that you might think, for no sooner does Mr. Chretien's team fly home than an 18-member IOC evaluation group will arrive in Beijing to assess its Olympic bid (a final decision will be made in early summer). Human rights are "going to be the issue, I think, in this election." IOC vice-president Dick Pound told Britain's The Independent last week. "Is it China's time or not?" Upping the pressure on China (perhaps) is that Mr. Pound thinks all the cities bidding for 2008 are worthy. So there are alternatives.

Meanwhile, each spring, a UN human rights monitoring committee, in Geneva, wrestles with a resolution on whether to condemn China's abysmal human rights record. This time out, expect the Chinese government to try to squelch that initiative with even more ferocity than usual; such embarrassment, with the Olympics at stake, would be untenable for Mr. Jiang and company.

There's an easier way to remove human rights as a liability during the pre-Olympic competition: for Beijing markedly and permanently to improve its human rights policies and record. That would be an achievement of significance. It would capture the spirit of the Games. It would win China what it really seeks: genuine respect.

After all, it worked for the South Koreans.