The Olympics are an appropriate forum for political gestures; I would argue, in fact, that the Olympics are a necessary forum for political speech.
The Olympic movement -- especially the International Olympic Committee -- claims that its goal is to put on a sporting event. President Bush said the same when asked whether he would attend. "I view the Olympics as a sporting event," the president said as he rejected the idea of a boycott.
But the Olympics is not a sporting event. The Super Bowl is a sporting event, and the World Series, the World Cup and the Tour de France. The Olympics, by charter, are something different: an international forum with a mandate to promote peace. The Olympic Charter says, "The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity."
The
Olympics have been widely used as a political forum. China, in fact, has used the Games as a blunt political tool for 50 years, denying athletes from Taiwan the right to participate. The United States participated in -- even led -- a boycott of the Games and the IOC banned the delegation from South Africa during apartheid. Athletes have made statements or gestures from the medal platforms on a range of humanitarian and political issues.
With the Beijing Games, of course, it's been political from the start. The IOC and corporations defended awarding the Olympics to
China because, they said, the Games would serve to open China to the world.
Protests are at the heart of open government. The right to protest and the ability to assemble and speak freely are some of the most basic human rights. The free exercise of these rights is what separates, in many cases, democracies from dictatorships. To call for a cessation of protests is to deny those basic rights and all they represent.
In fact, it is because China prohibits free speech and assembly that demonstrations at the official torch events are so important. It is the only way to express a view contrary to the Chinese government.
The Olympic corporate sponsors and the IOC have been silent about the Olympic host's destructive role in the
Darfur genocide, leading China to believe, perhaps, that these organizations agree with China's policies. It now appears likely that there will be a genocide unfolding while the world gathers to celebrate peace and cooperation. The Olympic host is underwriting that genocide, thereby making a mockery of all that the Olympics are supposed to embody.
The question is not, "Should protests be tied to the Olympics?" The question is, "Why aren't more people raising their voices?"
-- Jill Savitt, Director of Dream for Darfur
Linear Mode
