Many Worlds, Many Dreams

Since the awarding of the 2008 Olympic games to Beijing the International Olympic Committee and the Chinese government have repeatedly stated that the games are simply a sporting event and they should not be politicized.

There’s nothing inherently political about a sporting event, of course, but the Olympics aren’t just a sporting event. And while the powers that be may try to frame the games as pure sport, they also invest heavily in playing up the aura and mystique of the games precisely to convey that it is larger than sport. Mention is often made of Olympic ‘values’. There are official slogans for each Olympic Games. And of course, there are a host of non-sporting activities tied to the games, like the four-month running of the Olympic torch.

Of the nebulous ‘values’ associated with the Olympics, unity – the games’ ability to bring disparate nations and people together — is probably the one that is most often touted. For the 2008 games in Beijing, the official slogan is ‘One World, One Dream,’ an obvious reference to global — and national — unity. Everything about these games is meant to reinforce that unity. The planned opening ceremonies will be based around China’s ethnic minorities – Tibetans included — in an effort to put unity on display. Leaving aside for a moment how utterly inappropriate such an exercise this would be in any other nation — imagine for a moment if the Atlanta games’ opening ceremonies had featured happily dancing Native Americans, Asians,
Latinos, and Blacks (or more appropriately dancers in blackface, asmost of the ‘Tibetans’ on display will be Chinese) — such a pre-meditated show of unity is cause for reflection.

Unity is an interesting word when used in reference to a nation like China. Is the unity that is being touted ‘unity’ in the sense that all peoples can come together despite their differences? Or is it ‘unity’ in the traditional Beijing sense of the word — everyone will unite under the same party line and those who don’t will be punished? When a nation under a one-party system speaks of ‘One World, One Dream,’ it goes without saying that there are political undertones. For if those of us in democracies and those of us in one-party dictatorships are indeed united by one dream, what is that dream?

Last week, a Chinese AIDS and Environmental activist names Hu Jia was sentenced to 3.5 years in prison for challenging that unassailable image of unity. His offense? He wrote a simple letter calling out Beijing’s motivations behind the Olympics and the still persistent human rights abuses of the PRC.

His imprisonment shows exactly how the Chinese government interprets the word unity. Do what we say, or find yourself in jail.

Apparently Beijing is so lost in the sea of their own rhetoric that they actually thought the outside world would not question their image of a united society. They also apparently grossly miscalculated the degree to which Tibetans have been ready to seize the international spotlight to highlight the fact that while the official party line may be unity, not everyone’s been invited to the party.

The IOC has responded to the controversy in a manner typical of elusive European billionaires — they ignored it as long as they could, then they dismissed it. Last week, a high ranking IOC official coldly declared that Tibet is: “China’s problem.” So much for that One World.

And there’s the heart of it. If the games aren’t political, then why are they being used to tout universal values that apparently the IOC doesn’t even share? If this is indeed a world in which we are united, then wouldn’t the axiom: ‘No one is free when others are oppressed?’ be paramount? If voices are calling out for recognition, would not the espousers of a philosophy of ‘One World’ seek to include those voices?

Conversely, if the Olympics was simply a ‘sporting event’ would anyone care? Of course not. But the IOC is trying to have it both ways — convincing the world that the games are simply games while at the same time aiding China in the execution of every single one of its exercises in national unity. As long as everyone remained quiet, this strategy was — to a degree — working. But the way its shaping up now, the IOC is poised to be burned like never before.

The Olympics have had their share of controversy. But this time is different. This is not Jimmy Carter wagging his finger at the Soviets or US athletes raising their fists or terrorists holding athletes hostage. This time the gross negligence falls squarely on the shoulders of the IOC. The IOC has decided to ignore an international crisis and proceed full force with allowing a totalitarian regime to run the ‘One World’ torch through a restive, occupied territory. It goes without saying that when the torch hits Tibet the streets of
Lhasa will be lined with tanks and that potential detractors will be rounded up and arrested. I’m not sure exactly which of the Olympic values this reinforces, though it is certainly in line with Beijing’s idea of ‘unity.’

If Jacques Rogge’s tepid statement of concern this week hints at anything, its that the IOC, privately, is deeply, deeply concerned. As much as China underestimated Tibetans, the IOC clearly underestimated their hosts. How would Rogge, ruling the universe comfortably from his Carribbean yacht, have known that at the first hint of trouble, the cronies in Beijing would don their mothball-ridden Cultural Revolution uniforms and start speaking of “jackals” and “beasts.” And who would have thought they’d not only renege on their promise to uphold free speech, but they’d throw it in the world’s collective face, barring reporters from Tibet and sentencing Hu Jia to 3.5 years?

Well Jacques, to quote Football Coach Dennis Green, “They are who we thought they were.” Those of us who’ve actually studied the situation knew all along exactly how big this little issue of a totalitarian world superpower really is.

Giving the games to the Chinese government illuminates — with an Olympic sized flame — the massive elephant in the room that world governments and business leaders alike have been trying to ignore for the past 13 years: ever since the de-linking of human rights and trade concerns, we have put an economic air hose under a nation that still thinks its appropriate to imprison people for writing letters. We’ve given their leaders carte blanche to continue a one party system that cracks down on all forms of dissent, and now the ugly side of that elephant is lit up for all to see: Death threats for western reporters who visited Lhasa as part of the government delegation; no journalist access to Tibet; prison sentences for activists; ‘quick trials’ for protesters; patriotic re-education.

If Beijing takes any lesson from the growing controversy, its that unity is not something one can force on people with flag waving exercises and ethnic minorities theme parks. Unity does not emanate from state-controlled news coverage and forced patriotic re-education. Unity comes from tolerance of differences, pure and simple.

The reality is that within this One World, there are many worlds, and many dreams. The only possible unifying principle that binds all these dreams is that each one of them has the right to exist, and not only to exist, but to be fulfilled. Plurality — of voices, of political parties, of viewpoints, of cultures — is the unifying principle. And if Beijing wants to be a part of the One World, they better stop the damn charade and figure out a way to give voice to the many. Quick.

GNN contributor Josh Schrei is a producer, writer, and nonprofit strategist living in New York City. Josh has closely followed the situation on the ground in Tibet for 19 years, writing numerous articles on the subject that have been widely published. Josh served as Campaigns Coordinator for the Milarepa Fund from 1996 – 2001 and on the Board of Students for a Free Tibet from 1999 – 2004.

Posted by anthony
Anthony Lappé is GNN's Executive Editor. He's written for The New York Times, Details, New York, Paper, The Fader and Vice, among many others. He has worked as a producer for MTV and Fuse. He is the co-author of GNN's True Lies and the producer of their Iraq doc,...

RELATED ITEMS

• The Occupiers' Burden
  Posted by anthony on Thursday, March 20th 2008
• Tibet: Faith in Exile
  Posted by anthony on Friday, October 22nd 2004

RECENT COMMENTS

View Full Thread