Hi there-It’s been a while. Lots of unexpected things happening at this end so sorry about that. Last week The Lancet Student sent Adam Briggs, a final year medical student from Oxford University who is currently an intern with us to a fascinating event at the Royal Society of Arts in London. He reports back here and gives his own opinion at the end but what do you think?  So over to Adam-Rhona

The Beijing Olympic Games are being wielded more and more as a political tool rather than a celebration of international sporting excellence. International journalists have been afforded relative freedom by the Chinese government in the build up to the Games leading to China’s horrific human rights record being put under the international spotlight. Reports of torture, execution, and imprisonment as well unacceptable foreign policy towards Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Burma have been brought very much into the public eye. This is enhanced by Stephen Spielberg’s recent decision to withdraw as artistic adviser to the opening ceremony, attracting significant attention and leading to some calls for an international boycott.

On the 21st March, the RSA (Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce) hosted a lecture titled “Will human rights have a sporting chance at the Beijing Olympics?” with panellists Brad Adams, Asia Director, Human Rights Watch; Jonathan Fenby, former editor of the Observer and the South China Morning Post and author of forthcoming Penguin History of Modern China (May 2008); Rob Gifford, London Bureau Chief of US National Public Radio and author of China Road: A Journey into the Future of a Rising Power (Bloomsbury); and Mark Leonard, Executive Director of the European Council on Foreign Relations and author of What Does China Think? (4th Estate). They discussed whether the Olympic Games should be preserved as an independent celebration of sport or whether it should “be viewed as a unique opportunity to put stronger pressure on the host nation to improve its record on human rights?” I went along to find out what they thought.

The four panellists sat in front of an auditorium full of journalists, commentators and interested members of the public. They began with opening statements and (rather disappointingly for the interests of debate) they all agreed that an international governmental boycott is not the answer.

Mark Leonard made four points similar to those in his article for the Times earlier this month. (1)  He argued that it is impossible to separate politics from sport and that China’s acceptance of the Olympic games must make them open to political scrutiny; George Bush’s “I view the Olympics as a sporting event” (2) was dismissed as simplistic and naïve.

Mark Leonard believes that although an Olympic boycott would be too great a sanction, “with global power comes global responsibility” - China must be accountable for their actions. Stephen Spielberg’s decision to boycott has caused China considerable embarrassment and was applauded by all the panellists; however, Mark Leonard called for more focussed criticism of the regime and argued that Stephen Spielberg could have been more effective were he to have made specific demands on Chinese policy. Finally, we need to consider western countries’ foreign policy in areas that we criticise China. Western governments must be committed to active participation in the resolution of conflict in areas such as Darfur rather than “hide behind Chinese vetoes”.

Experienced journalist Jonathan Fenby was asked “Is it futile to put pressure on a dictatorship?” He replied, “Maybe, yes.” This is surely a major hurdle in affecting a change in Chinese policy by boycotting the Olympics? Jonathan Fenby disagrees and says that although there may not be a widespread Chinese mind shift until there is a change of regime, progressive steps are being made. Journalists have been released from prison, civilians are talking to members of the press.

Rob Gifford agreed and said that Chinese human rights are at the best they have been for years, however, he also agrees with the annual US human rights report stating that they are still among the worst in the world. (3)

Rob Gifford spent several months in China travelling 3000 miles along Route 312, the Chinese equivalent of the US route 66, to research his book China Road: A Journey into the Future of a Rising Power.  His experience taught him that the Chinese people, especially the new middle class, very much champion the government and he warns that an international boycott could lead to an intense wave of anger within the country towards the west.

Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch agreed that a total boycott of the Games would be unfair on the Chinese people but he would encourage individuals to make a stand. However, he acknowledged that this would be unlikely in a sporting era dictated by agents and sponsorship. Brad Adams suggested that if governments boycott the Olympics then should they not also boycott Chinese involvement in the UN, the World Bank, etc? The Olympics will have the unfortunate consequence of legitimising the Chinese government but he believes that the party will fall apart in the future. In the short term it may be difficult to achieve much change to Chinese internal or foreign policy but in the long term this needs to be the beginning of continued outspoken pressure on the regime.

Both Brad Adams and Jonathan Fenby agreed that Gordon Brown and George W Bush’s policy of behind closed doors diplomatic pressure will not work and that Hu Jintau’s government responds more to the embarrassment caused by public criticism; this is why all the panellists were so much in favour of Stephen Spielberg’s open derision of Chinese policy in Darfur. Finally Brad Adams stressed that we must not be hypocritical; if we in the West are to criticise Chinese human rights, then we must also criticise the records in our own countries: British and American soldier’s treatment of prisoners in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, should all be brought to account. 

China is desperate to be a world power and has a rapidly developing economic portfolio enabling its transition. Jonathan Fenby explained that to the Chinese government “raw materials from dodgy regimes are more important than the dodgy regimes”; it is this foreign policy that has allowed them to so rapidly manoeuvre into the driving seat at the international economic table. As Mark Leonard says, it can no longer hide behind the tag of being a developing nation and must now accept its global responsibility.

So what can we do about Chinese human rights? I came out of this debate better informed about Chinese domestic and foreign policy, but no clearer on what to do about it. Western governments should make public criticism of the Chinese regime but not boycott the games, individual athletes should boycott but their sponsors won’t let them.

There is no doubt that competing at the Olympic Games is the pinnacle of an athlete’s career and it would be unfair to expect them to give this up. However the decisions by the Belgian and New Zealand Olympic Committees to censor athlete’s right to free speech about Chinese human rights has been rightly condemned. Perhaps the most powerful message that can be sent would be for an athlete not to accept their medal and we wait to see whether any has the determination to make such a sacrifice.

As for us as the individual? We will still watch the Games, we will still cheer our sporting heroes, and I challenge you to stop buying Chinese goods; however, we must remain acutely aware of the injustice within China and of the injustice it fuels internationally. The media and the public need to openly condemn Chinese human rights and put pressure on Western governments to follow suit.

So should the Games “be viewed as a unique opportunity to put stronger pressure on the host nation to improve its record on human rights?” Yes, and this pressure needs to continue long after the Games have finished. Adam Briggs adambriggs@doctors.org.uk

(1) Leonard M. No grandstanding on China, please. The Times. 16^th Feb, 2008
(2) In full: George W Bush Interview. BBC on line 14th Feb 2008 
(3) Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. US Department of State 2006 http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/

Bookmark on delicious | Digg

This entry was posted on Monday, February 25th, 2008 at 4:33 pm and is filed under Blog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can trackback from your own site.