The Chinese Saga of Olympic Shame Continues......The Degeneration of the
Olympic Rings/The Epoch Times

The Degeneration of the Olympic Rings
Analysis of the 2008 Olympic Games and China's human rights situation
By He Qinglian

The Epoch Times

Aug 16, 2007

http://en.epochtimes.com/news_images/2007-7-8-olympicschain.jpg
Reporters Without Borders initiated its "Beijing 2008" campaign with a
handcuff Olympic symbol to remind people of the nature of the Chinese
Communist Party. (www.rsf.org)

Related Articles
- One Year Countdown to the 2008 Olympics in Beijing Begins! Saturday,
August 11, 2007
- Global Human Rights Torch Relay Kicks Off in Athens Friday, August 10,
2007
- Human Rights Abuses in China Should be Required Reading for Olympics
Friday, August 10, 2007
- Global Human Rights Torch Relay Well Received in Greece Friday, August
10, 2007
- Promises Cynically Broken Over the 2008 Beijing Olympics Friday,
August 10, 2007

Compared to the pride Bejing had eight years ago upon securing the 2008
Olympic Games, the present mood of the Chinese communist regime is
anything but proud; for it is now mired in an embarrassing situation:
the international community is offering a variety of activities aimed at
boycotting the 2008 Olympics. There are even groups in Norway (which
used to keep itself away from international political issues) supporting
the multinational boycott. The Chinese communist regime finds it most
unbearable that their country's own people have participated in these
activities. One example is the 3,000 farmers in Qinghua Village, Fujin
City in China's Heilongjiang Province who have signed a petition
"against the Olympics and in support of human rights."

It has been only seven years since Beijing won its Olympics bid in 2001.
Since the mythic charm of China's outstanding economy hasn't faded away,
why does the international community hold a dramatically different
impression of this country? By analyzing various Olympics' boycott
slogans, we observe that China's refusal to honor its previous promises
and abandonment of justice fueled this widespread endeavor. Seven years
ago the Chinese communist regime pledged to address its appalling human
rights record in order to host the 2008 Olympics. But when China was
awarded the Games, the regime did little to improve its worsening human
rights situation. On the contrary, an increase in political pressure and
a more powerful network of secret agents have made a bad situation even
worse.

I. The Olympics' Boycott Resulted from China's Refusal to Honor Previous
Promises

China's attitude toward the boycott turned itself into a laughing stock.
The Chinese communist regime often stops those who speak out against the
regime by charging these individuals with political offences, such as
"endangering national security," "governmental subversion" and
"illegally leaking state secrets." These critics often end up behind
bars for their offences. But when it comes to the subject of the
boycott, China has uncharacteristically depoliticized the issue,
demanding that the international community not to politicize the
Olympics. One example is a professor quoted on China's state-run media
that those who mixed the Olympics with politics "totally misunderstood
the spirit of the Olympics." This report went on to explain that the
boycott organized by America and 60 other nations against the Moscow
Olympics was nothing more than "a slapstick comedy." In reality, the
highly politicized Chinese communist regime is the least qualified to
demand that others keep a distance from politics.

In July, 2001 in Moscow when placed its bid for the Olympics, China was
determined to win the Games at any cost. To silence dissenting voices,
China promised the International Olympic Committee and its opponents
that if it were awarded the 2008 Olympics, China would better its human
rights situation. But in the past few years, China's human rights
situation has not improved, but is instead worsening. Headquartered in
Paris, France, Reporters Without Borders has been paying close attention
to China's human rights situation. A dominant force for the boycott
against the Olympics, Reporters Without Borders has continued to
criticize China's tight control over public opinion and has protested
the regime's backlash toward those who've severely criticized the
regime. In order to silence Reporters Without Borders, in January 2007,
Chinese authorities invited Robert Menard, general secretary of
Reporters Without Borders, and Vincent Brosse, director of the
organization's Asia office, to visit China. During their visit, Chinese
officials promised they would better their human rights situation, but
they were lying through their teeth, and Reporters Without Borders was
deceived into disbanding its boycott.

While in China, Menard made ten demands for improving freedom of the
press. He made particular mention of the repeated demand for the release
of imprisoned reporters and dissidents who were charged with political
offenses for posting articles critical of the regime on the Internet.
The list included over 100 dissidents, reporters and defenders for
freedom of speech. Menard singled out those with the poorest health, the
oldest, and individuals who had been imprisoned for longest time.
Chinese authorities promised that "there was no problem with the
release," and further specified the date of either release or visitation
rights would be granted. In addition, China pledged that Reporters
Without Borders could establish a base in the country, and the regime
promised to lift the ban imposed on certain websites.

But seven months after this meeting, China failed to fulfill any of its
promises. Reporters Without Borders had no choice but to launch a new
campaign. The director of Reporters Without Borders wrote to the
International Olympic Committee demanding that China enforce its
previous promise to address its appalling human rights record. As the
signature image of its new campaign, Reporters Without Borders designed
a logo of five interlinked handcuffs in place of the Olympic rings. The
newly designed logo symbolizes that the Chinese communist regime has
turned the country into an enormous jail; it reflects deprivation of
freedom from which Chinese people have been suffering.

II. The Boycott Against the 2008 Olympics is Endowed with Political
Justice and Moral Nobility.

Compared with other boycotts in history, the boycott against the 2008
Olympics has two distinguishing features:

To begin with, international human rights groups like Amnesty
International―with supporters from all walks of life, ranging from
politicians, social celebrities, to ordinary college students―have
called for this boycott. They are the driving force behind this
initiative. The Australia-based Human Rights Union―consisting of many
former Canadian political heavyweights, California Congressman Tom
Lantos, former Canadian Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific David
Kilgour, and French presidential candidate Segolene Royal have all
expressed support for this effort.

Yet it is United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) Ambassador Mia Farrow
who lends the boycott its muscle. In her article published in the Wall
Street Journal on March 28, 2007, she condemned China for propping up
the regime of Sudan, which "in turn caused the genocide in Darfur."
Additionally, she dubbed the Games "the Genocide Olympics," and called
for a boycott. Furthermore, she wrote another article, singling out
distinguished director Steven Spielberg, who had arrived in Beijing in
mid-March to help Beijing promote the Olympics. She questioned whether
Spielberg had any idea that China's bloody money was behind the genocide
in Darfur. Spielberg responded to her accusation by contacting China's
leader Hu Jintao, condemning the genocide in Darfur, and urging Beijing
to exert its influence on Sudan so as to "end the suffering of people
there."

Currently, Canada is the nation that lends the most powerful voice to
the call for a boycott. Even Canadian college students support the
boycott―of all the student groups participating in this effort, the
Students' Union of Simon Fraser University in Canada are the most active
in support of the boycott. Judging from the many organizations
mentioned, we can conclude that boycott supporters are not limited to
what the Chinese communist regime calls the "anti-China forces"― right
wing Japanese, Falun Gong, or the Taiwanese independence group, nor are
the supporters the so-called "vulgar figures" who intend to acquire fame
through this endeavor.

Secondly, the reason for boycotting the Beijing Olympics has nothing to
do with the personal interest of the advocates. Instead, the concern is
for the human rights situation for the Chinese people and cooperation
between the Chinese communist regime and the Sudanese authorities.
Boycott advocates simply can't tolerate the human rights infringement in
China, Sudan and Zimbabwe, etc. In other words, the boycott against the
Beijing Olympics is the most justified Olympics boycott in history in
terms of morality. Those who participate in the boycott are not
motivated by personal interest, they have simply seen evidence of abuse.
This includes videos of Chinese farmers who are fiercely beaten by baton
wielding police, military forces and mafia who take their orders from
local officials who wish to punish the farmers who resist the regime's
forcible levy on their land. These advocates also know that that the
regime can, without notice, evict Chinese people from their homes in the
name of improving the city. Disgusted by these Chinese authorities,
known by some as the "enemy of the Internet", these advocates sympathize
with the ordinary Chinese individuals who are imprisoned for publishing
their opinions online. They are also aware that China is the largest
source of human organs in the world, and realize the cruelty and
inhumanity used in the all too common practice of forcible abortion.
These advocates also know that, in addition to the violence against
human beings, many animals are unnecessarily maltreated in China. Due to
the above evidence, boycott advocates aim to express a magnificent wish
through their actions: facilitate the improvement of human rights for
the people who live in a country that most of them have not visited.

When compared with the group dumping waste water at boycott activities,
boycott advocates have demonstrated a high degree of morality. Even
Chinese authorities have to admit that those dumping waste water in
protest of boycott activities merely acted out of their own interests.
In the April 7, 2007 a Global Times article, "Individual Politicians
Coerce China, Threatening to Boycott Beijing's Olympics but Receive
Little Support Among Western Media," one Chinese official said, "China
is an economically strong country now. Many countries and companies have
focused their interests here and watch what they need to do to maintain
a good relationship with China." The statement says it all. Other than
the attraction of benefits, the Chinese communist regime is fully aware
that it has no moral inspiration.

The Olympics boycott among Chinese people is especially rare but
thoroughly commendable. Despite the pressure imposed by secret agencies
and police, a petition signed by farmers in Heilongjiang exclaims, "We
want human rights! Not Olympics," indicating that these citizens refuse
to tolerate a miserable life for the sake of this spectacle.

III. Chinese Realization: Human Rights Are More Important than Gold
Medals and Olympics

Public opinion in China has been highly critical of "Gold Medal
Politics" ever since the 2004 Olympics.

Through years of propaganda and ideological education, the Chinese
communist regime has been inculcating a political illusion that winning
Olympic gold medals equates to building China's might and prosperity.
Consider that the political agenda pursued by this regime has been one
focused on building the country's prestige and military power. Even the
"economic development" emphasized since the reforms aims at
strengthening the country, not enriching the people. Human rights are
not a factor included in their political considerations. Therefore, the
Chinese regime holds a specious understanding that the Olympics are an
opportunity to showboat their power and grab international recognition.
Winning a great number of gold medals or hosting an Olympics Games are
considered key strategies to promoting China's international prestige
and fortifying domestic harmony. The regime keeps propagandizing that,
in hosting an Olympics Games, a feat that led to Japan and Korea
becoming modernized countries, they will bring a bright future to China.
China's so-called "Gold Medal Politics," unseen elsewhere, is thus
shaped under such a political environment. On July 29, 1984 when Xu
Haifeng won the first gold medal at the Los Angeles Olympics after China
was away from the Olympics for 28 years, the Chinese general public was
overcome with elation. A news report titled "Glory of Gun Shot at Prado"
written by Sun Jie for the China Youth Daily was later selected into the
elementary school text book. Since then, the allure of the Olympic gold
medal made its impression into the mind of a new generation and became a
vital part of the Chinese dream for a strong country. An "Olympic
Complex" became one of the important tools for the Chinese regime to
agglomerate public support. Many Chinese (including a lot of overseas
Chinese) consider one's support of Beijing's Olympic as a patriotic
action. When Beijing was elected as the host city for the Olympics in
2001, a lot of Chinese thought the country's international prestige
would be greatly enhanced.

However, the real outcome of this "gold-medal" policy towards physical
education did not in fact improve the overall physical health of the
nation. Save for a number of athletes becoming gold medal laureates
through taxpayer money and the group of officials that personally
benefited from the program, the general public would never see how the
number of Olympic gold medals had anything to do with their quality of
life. In the 2004 Olympics, China became the second leading gold-medal
winning country. As officials celebrated the achievement, public opinion
in China, which the regime gave little notice, took critical stance
toward the "Olympic Complex." The so-called "gold-medal" policy was
criticized by many. The criticism can be summarized as follows.

1. Suspicion Of "Gold-Medal" Policy: Does It Really Benefit The General
Public?

China's athletes won 32 gold medals in the 2004 Olympics, trailing
closely behind USA's 35. Considering the promise of the "Olympic
Complex," Chinese people should feel happy and proud at this
achievement. However, Chinese citizens, as they began to awake, were not
excited by the Olympic glory―they noticed that the enormous investment
the regime made in pursuing gold medals at the expense of public welfare
did not equal what their former Soviet neighbors produced with a
comparatively lesser sacrifice. The total number of gold medals won by
Russia and eight other former Soviet republics including Ukraine,
Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Lithuania reached 45 (the total
number of medals was 162), actually a greater number than the top
ranking USA. Originally, Chinese people felt the regime's gold-medal
policy was justified, as the Soviet Union was employing a similar
strategy. However, these countries have become democratized and can no
longer rely on an autocratic allocation of resources to chase Olympic
gold. That is, their gold medal achievement was driven by athletes
themselves. And as for the U.S. Olympic team, Chinese people have become
aware that, except for a few profitable sports that are able to support
professional athletes by drawing a substantial number of TV viewers,
almost all U.S. competitors are amateurs who must balance their athletic
aspirations with another career. In a significant contrast, China's
athletes are all professionals supported by tax dollars.

Chinese people also understand that China is not a sports giant in the
world even though its athletes have won lot of Olympic medals. Among the
top 10 gold-medal-winning countries, there is an average of one gold
medal for every one million people with some country-to-country
variation. The disparity becomes clear when you consider that the ratio
is a gold medal for every 2.85 million people in USA and 20.59 million
people in China. Ironically, Chinese people also realize that Chinese
students who study abroad cannot compete with their classmates in sports
because their regime does not provide free public sports facilities for
the general public.

Chinese people are well aware of what's happening around them: Their
country's education industry is so backward that about 50 million
children are unable go to school; the regime's outstanding debt for the
social pension fund reaches one trillion yuan (US $125 billion) which
accounts for half of China's GDP, leaving many retirees without their
pension. Many cannot afford to get sick since the regime's "medical
insurance reform" project has minimized the funding of the social
welfare system and most Chinese people simply do not have the money to
see a doctor. While many in the country live below poverty, the Chinese
regime squanders large sums of money cultivating gold medal athletes in
hopes of raising China's international image. Is it in the interest of
Chinese people, and is it consistent with common people's wishes?

2. How Much Does Each Gold Medal Cost?

An article entitled "A Warning of the Pitfall in Olympic Gold Medals"
has further echoed this sentiment. The author revealed a shocking
number: After the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, the business expenditure of
China's General Administration of Sport went from three billion yuan
(about $400 million) to a staggering five billion yuan (about $500
million). To this end, China had spent some 20 billion yuan ($2.5
billion) during the four years preparing for the Athens Olympic Games.
If we suppose that China garnered 30 gold medals (in fact it was 32) in
Athens, the cost for each gold medal was about 700 million yuan ($90
million), which might be the most expensive gold medal in the world. Bao
Mingxiao, director of the Institute of Physical Science under the
General Administration of Sports, stated that it was not right to
include all the General Administration of Sports' expenditures into the
cost for the gold medals. He added that on average, the Chinese regime
spends between 4 million yuan ($500 000) to 5 million yuan ($600 000) in
expenses for an Olympic medalist. As the Chinese Olympic delegation is
composed of 400 athletes, the aggregate investment would be between 1.6
billion yuan ($0.2 billion) and 2 billion yuan ($0.25 billion). If the
figure is divided by 32, the number of gold medals garnered, each gold
medal may cost between 50 million yuan ($6 million) to 60 million yuan
($7.5 million).

Originally, Bao Mingxiao intended to clarify that the cost for each gold
medal was not as much as 700 million yuan ($90 million), but even a
figure of between between 50 million yuan ($6 million) to 60 million
yuan ($7.5 million) is by no means small change.

What was most ironic to the Chinese people is that the 2004 Olympic
Games coincided with the beginning of China's school semester. At that
time the media reported many cases of children from poor families being
unable afford to pay their tuition, which ranged from several hundred to
several thousand yuan. Because of this, many children and parents
committed suicide throughout the country. On one hand, many of China's
social elite traveled to Athens to enjoy a relaxing and cheerful
excursion at the Olympic Games; on the other, many of China's poor
committed suicide out of frustration due to the high cost in tuition. As
China's poor suffered and struggled, those gold medals inevitably lost
their sparkle. As a result, many have wondered if it is worthwhile to
handsomely award athletes and let officials squander public funds
overseas under the guise of Olympics. A 2004 audit revealed the scandal
of the General Administration of Sport's appropriation of funds
exclusively designated for the Olympic Games, the money being used
instead to build mansions. The scandal further stoked the people's doubt
and criticism. As a result, some bloggers expressed their discontent by
claiming that a lot of China's corruption has occurred under the guise
of the Olympics.

Between gold medals and people's livelihood, which one is more
important? The split on this issue is so serious that many people whose
awareness has been raised have bitterly exclaimed, "We want human rights
rather than the Olympic Games."

Conclusion: Only Countries That Respect Human Rights Will Be Respected
By The World

It is only about one year or so before China hosts the 2008 Olympic
Games. The Chinese regime has squandered a huge amount of money on
expenditures that have nothing to do with people's livelihood and has
inspired many complaints among the Chinese people. Because of this, it
is very likely that China may follow in the footsteps of Nazi Germany
and the former Soviet Union, as these two former autocratic superpowers
had also used the Olympic Games as a means to show off their "glory,
greatness and correctness," but these two superpowers also collapsed
less than ten years after hosting the Olympics. As these precedents are
still vivid in our minds, the Chinese regime's refusal to acknowledge
human rights may only trigger an early arrival of crises.

On April 30, 2007, Amnesty International released a 22-page report
entitled "China: The Olympics Countdown―Repression Of Activists
Overshadows Death Penalty And Media Reforms." The report made painfully
clear that the purpose of the international society's support of China's
hosting the 2008 Olympic Games was an effort to help improve the
country's human rights. For this, the Beijing administration also
promised to extensively improve China's human right situation. However,
a recent investigation and assessment found that in preparing to host
the Olympic Games, the Chinese regime has detained more people and sent
more individuals to forced labor camps without trial, making for a
situation that is even worse than before.

This report ruthlessly criticized China's deplorable human right
situation, but due to the restraints of the article's length and the
nature of the organization, it could only list some individual
persecution cases against political prisoners and prisoners of
conscience. In reality, the Chinese people's terrible living environment
further underscores China's appalling human rights situation. The Shanxi
Black Brick Kiln Incident―which saw many child slaves forced to work in
an underground brick factory― merely represents a typical case which
points to the collapse of China's countryside and the country's
economically bankrupt farm villages. As similar incidents have occurred
throughout China, it is by no means an isolated incident.

Given these examples, being a Chinese scholar with a conscience, I would
like once again to urge the country to look at the following: Aside from
getting rich and building up its military power, China should take human
rights to be an integral part of its goal in becoming a superpower. A
country may be famous for its military buildup and national finance, but
if its people must work in a terrible environment and live under intense
political pressure, no matter how many strategies China initiates to
uplift its international image (such as hosting the Olympic Games), it
will never win the world's respect, and it will never realize its dream
of becoming a world leader.

In late July, 2007 in New Jersey, the United States.

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-8-16/58691.html