News from Tibet has been dismal. Anti-government protests, and China’s violent retaliation, have left about 20 dead while thousands of police and army troops patrol the streets. The 2008 summer Olympic Games in Beijing, China, are near, and the call for world political leaders to boycott the opening ceremony has become almost deafening.

No definite talk of pulling athletes from the competition has been voiced, but calling for a world boycott of the ceremonial opening makes me wonder: What will it accomplish? Does anyone really think that the absence of athletes is going to persuade the Chinese not to viciously react to rebellious citizens?

China has an offensive record in regards to human rights, which really comes as no surprise given the situation in Tibet and China aiding the genocide in Darfur. However, the International Olympic Committee without doubt knew all about China’s reputation before the games were awarded.

The media circus surrounding a boycott would no doubt overshadow the crisis in Darfur that gave birth to the boycott to begin with. Every major newspaper and television station would run headlines about the boycott, about its international implications, about its effect on sports, about China’s reaction, and various nations’ inputs. Darfur would once again take the back burner.

Past experiences show boycotts rarely have success. In 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and President Jimmy Carter issued an ultimatum; The United States would boycott the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow if Russian troops didn’t withdraw.

The Soviets didn’t back down, and the United States didn’t go to the games. In retaliation, the Soviets boycotted the 1984 games in Los Angeles.

In 1936, did Nazi-infested Berlin have rightful claim to host the Olympics? Should that game have been boycotted? Perhaps.

However, black track runner Jesse Owens got the best revenge on Adolf Hitler’s demented views of ethnic purity when he won four gold medals. The Olympics are nothing but symbolic. Owens was the personification of the free world when he won his gold medals.

We look to the competing athletes as role models. Why not have them lead the charge against genocide? These are the people who can spark a movement towards the ending of killing mass humans. It may take an Olympic fire to shine a light on the genocide, but a boycott would leave the uninformed in the dark.

With the Olympics set to start in August, I must be honest: I am disgusted with every protestor who says the United States should boycott the games or even the opening ceremony. The purpose of the games is for athletes to come together from around the world.

Yet here we are, months away from the opening games, and it’s conceivable that our country might not compete. What’s more frustrating is that boycotting the Olympics will not solve the issues surrounding China’s human rights violations.

Let’s say we do boycott the games. Do protestors and government officials actually think China will change overnight? Since when does the government feel the need to interfere with a sporting event, especially one that is not supposed to be political?

If the Olympics were to be held in the United States, should it be boycotted because some feel we don’t have a right to be in Iraq? Should we boycott a sporting event in India because it has poor environmental practices? The answer is no.

Politics don’t belong in sports. The real losers in these boycotts are the athletes who spend days on end sweating and preparing for the games, only to be denied the opportunity to compete.

The Olympics are about brotherhood, passion, competition and performance. World leaders should not be taking a moral stand on China’s tactics towards insurgents through Olympic Games, but rather by hitting them with the pocketbook.

I see what China is doing, and it is unquestionably wrong to oppress people. But to use the Olympics as a platform to speak out against China is despicable. After all, the Olympics are supposed to glorify the individual, not glorify a nation.

Boycotting the opening ceremonies is certainly a straightforward way of communicating disapproval, but let’s not pretend it’s going to change anything.

> Comments