It is very easy to forget, in our politically charged modern times, the reasons and the nature of the original Greek Olympic Games. Tribal disagreements and politics were set aside, wars halted, and a flame of peace lit for the duration of the Games. Vying for attention and facing death on the battle fields was replaced with healthy competition in the arena.

The modern Olympics were meant to reflect that ethic; but the wider, modern world seems unable to cope with such a simple notion as putting aside differences for a short period every four years in the name of that great leveller called sport, where a poor African can compete just as well against a spoilt Westerner in long distance running, and a football team from a conflict-torn Middle Eastern state can compete against a capitalist power state. It is the sportsmen and women who take centre stage, not the posturings of the states they represent. The hosts, meanwhile, spend huge sums to do all they can to put on a show to wow the world, to accommodate the many athletes from the many countries that take part.

But naturally there are those who seek to politicise such an event, turning attention to matters that have nothing to do about sport.

Such has been the case with China. There is no denying that China has questionable human rights issues, and its treatment of the Tibetans is poor, and especially the establishment's reaction to the demonstrations in the Spring of 2008. The world was quick to condemn, and many politicians quick to voice their objections by announcing their boycott of the forthcoming Games.

There has recently been a backlash by the Chinese - but not from the befuddled, misinformed masses, as one might expect. China's wealthier citizens, who are well read and more fully aware of world issues - including what is happening in Tibet - than others might give them credit for, are becoming increasingly furious with other countries' reactions to the Tibet issue. They see such reactions as hypocritical when compared with, say, Guantanamo Bay, the Iraq war, US/European posturing against Iran, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, etc. Moreover, they find it difficult to understand why the world should remain obstinate in its attitudes towards China despite its clear attempts to open up to the world. Indeed, it does not seem to matter whether China makes progress to open up trade and politics, or remains a truly repressive Communist state: much of the developed world will still find fault regardless. Indeed, some of China's worldlier citizens are reacting against this perceived hypocrisy by boycotting luxury and other well known goods produced by China's critics and turning to goods produced by domestic manufacturers instead.

Even the Chinese Government's swift and well-executed rescue efforts in the aftermath of the recent earthquakes has failed to bring about a change of heart from world leaders on the boycotting issue. Instead of rallying to China's defence and lifting the boycott, those previously vocal world leaders have remained quiet on their Olympic boycott posturing. Nor has the Dalai Lama's announcements that the Games should not be boycotted caused any of them to sway. Instead, some world leaders continue to pander to the political activists rather than concede to the original Olympic message of peace and the setting aside of differences.

It appears world peace and harmony, if only for a few weeks, is as impossible as it ever was, and sadly will be.

Learn more about this author, David Chaproniere.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

---

Add your voice

Know something about European countries boycotting the China Olympics?
We want to hear your view. Write now!