Olympics: soft target for hypocrits

Olympics a soft target for A-list hypocrites
Published:Mar 15, 2008

Raging against multinationals isn’t sexy or convenient

Tear chunks out of the sleaze bags

In january, it was Prince Charles. Last month, it was Steven Spielberg. This month, it’s George Clooney. Next month, bet on Quincy Jones.

At issue is the Olympic Games, more specifically China providing weapons to Sudan and buying up most of its oil.

Prince Charles is matey with the Dalai Lama, so he declined an invitation to the Beijing Olympics.

Spielberg, who was artistic adviser for the opening and closing ceremonies, resigned after taking heat on the Darfur issue, most pointedly from actress Mia Farrow. She calls the coming Olympics the “Genocide Games”.

Clooney advertises Omega watches, who happen to be Olympic sponsors. He says he’s put pressure on the company to use its influence to help e ffect change.

Jones, meanwhile, is doing the musical score but insiders say he’s getting jumpy and considering his options.

Darfur aside, the other 200kg gorilla in the room is China’s appalling human rights record. Despite the US State Department this week down- grading China as a human rights abuser, it remains a scary place for free-thinking journalists and human rights activists. Not to mention criminals, who accounted for a big chunk of the 6000 people executed there in 2007, according to the Dui Hua Foundation. These numbers are an estimate — the real figure is a state secret.

Given all this, you would have to agree that giving the Games to Beijing was a tad unfortunate. China never bid out of pure Corinthian ideals, but rather to use them as a platform to display its burgeoning economic power.

The International Olympic Committee didn’t award the Games to China because its bid was best. Politics, money and opportunity were at its core.

We’ve since had Britain and New Zealand impose gagging orders on their athletes, warning them not to speak out against China’s policies, although these have since been rescinded.

The stage is thus set for some powerful grand-standing, € la Tommie Smith and John Carlos performing their black power salute at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City.

It’s absurd to say sports and politics shouldn’t mix, but the hypocrisy over China is staggering. Take Prince Charles, whose sense of morality doesn’t extend to Saudi Arabia, whose royal family he enjoys a strong relationship with. Human rights aren’t big in Saudi Arabia; public executions are.

Spielberg is little better. He withdrew over the issue of Darfur, yet he and many others say nothing about the massive trade links between China and the free world. Indeed, Michael Jordan and his Nikes have become iconic images in downtown Beijing, where the basketballer’s handsome face looms large on billboards.

Clooney is as ridiculous as his goofy smile. Hollywood’s leading man is quite happy to lean on Omega to take issue with China over human rights, but his indignation evidently has its limits.

A more powerful message would have been to tear up his Omega deal in protest at their links with Beijing. That would have really got the pot cooking. But it would have also have put a dent in poor George’s pocket.

Even Archbishop Desmond Tutu warned that China could face an international boycott if it did not move to end the atrocities in Darfur. Which begs the question: why is Darfur suddenly China’s problem? What has the African Union done to help end the conflict on its doorstep?

It’s naive to believe the Beijing Games will be just about sport but, equally, they can be used to encourage cultural understanding. Boycotts and heavy-handed speeches may draw attention to China’s problems, but they won’t lead to fundamental changes. Which Olympics ever did?

Sport, as Clooney, Prince Charles, Farrow and Spielberg have demonstrated, is simply the soft, high-profile option to attack.

Their protests would carry real weight if they were directed at the multinationals, conglomerates and first-world governments who blithely continue to do big business with China.

But raging against them isn’t sexy or convenient — unlike the Olympics.

A bit misleading there. The NZOC didn’t institute that clause for Beijing it was there for a while.

From
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4404673a2201.html

dated 17 February

More troubling, surely, is the news our New Zealand Olympic Games Committee has admitted to the unnecessary gagging of its athletes for the past eight years