Last week, I ended by asking whether or not China really deserves to host the Olympics. The reason is simple: the Olympics bring along more than good sportsmanship and a fuzzy feeling of international camaraderie. If money were manna and it fell from the sky, one could light a torch in honour of the Olympics. In other words, the Olympics are a reward. It is fame and fortune for the lucky host country. But what, exactly, are we rewarding?

The question is more complicated when we acknowledge that the Olympics aren’t supposed to be about politics. Political conflict is anathema to the noble Olympian spirit that makes the games a symbol of hope for the world. If we start to ask whether China deserves the Olympics, aren’t we also asking whether other countries deserve the games? Would the U.S. be deserving with its Guantanamo Bay, its Abu Ghraib, its war in Iraq, its Patriot Act, its increasingly sinister pursuit of security at the cost of privacy and personal liberty? Would Russia, with its slide away from democracy? How about Canada and its seal hunt? Would any country, in fact, deserve the Olympics if we were to apply stringent moral criteria? And who would decide which country is worthy? If someone says the U.N., he or she should be nominated for Last Comic Standing.

Rules of Engagement

At stake is how we choose to engage countries whose behaviour, either domestically or internationally, is objectionable in some way. Too many favour military solutions, as exemplified by the deluded Iraq War, when the alternative – sending Nixon to China – can provoke profound changes without involving violence. The change from China’s closed communism to a form of capitalism is rather remarkable. And yet, it’s also clear that cultural and economic engagement, like all human endeavours, doesn’t necessarily follow predictable paths. China’s authoritarian capitalism is not quite what human rights activists hoped to see, especially with the ghost of Tiananmen lurking about, and China seems to be using the Olympics as an excuse to squash dissent (http://news.yahoo.com/). So how do we resolve this dilemma of encouraging China to move away from repressive dictatorship to open democracy?

The lure of a seemingly quick and easy military solution is as strong as ever, Iraq notwithstanding. Yet clearly, China wouldn’t be a pushover, both from a military standpoint and in terms of international approval. But perhaps the point to be taken from all of this is that we suffer from a severe case of impatience. It’s understandable: we see (or experience) injustice and, like avenging angels in desperate need to make good, we go in with guns blazing. But surely impatience is what undermined our ability to impede international terrorism, especially in the months following Sept.11. Instead of letting methodical police and intelligence work, combined with the judicious use of special ops and foreign cooperation, come to fruition, we rushed the war machine into a country irrelevant to Sept. 11 with dire consequences in terms of casualties, regional stability. and so on.

One World, One Dream

Patience, then. In the past 30 years, we have seen that China is capable of change. Whether the Beijing Olympics motto “One World, One Dream” is hollow or not, perhaps it’s worth taking a deep breath and looking at the situation with an eye on the longer term. An overall strategy manifests itself, following the lines of the adage “Be the change you want to see in the world.” Obviously, a key component of this strategy is to heed Naomi Klein’s report on the Golden Shield: we need to stop enabling China’s authoritarianism by selling them surveillance technology. In a similar vein, companies like Google and Microsoft should refuse to enable the Chinese government’s internet censorship (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/), even if it means the loss of business opportunities. In the moral balance of things, ethics should trump profit.

The other key is realizing that even if China is being hypocritical in regards to the Olympics, greater cultural contact between Chinese citizens and the rest of the world can only increase the chances that government censorship will crack. “One World, One Dream” may only be a façade, but it’s better to have that façade than none at all. If words precede action, if the pretense of change makes possible the actuality of change, China’s apparent commitment to Olympic ideals will plant seeds that, with patience, will eventually germinate. This is not so far-fetched. Reports of protests and internal social unrest (http://news.yahoo.com/) paint a picture of a political landscape riddled with faultlines. The haves vs. the have-nots, the disparity between those with power and those without; reasons for revolution in a history defined by the rise and fall of all regimes.