What We Can Learn from History of the Olympic Games
China has been allowed to host the Olympic Games 2008, in spite of the fact that the country neither is democratic nor follows the human rights of the United Nations. The Olympic Games symbolises peace and acceptance, and has through history been a gesture of understanding and friendship between countries and people. It is inappropriate that China, a communistic dictatorship, gets to hold the Olympic Games in 2008, since history shows the importance of combining the Olympics solely with democracy.
Despite the fact the communistic leaders of the country promised that the Olympics would increase their obeying to the Human Rights, the restrictions of freedom have increased. The government has always seen censorship as their right, however presently it has been taken a step longer. Chinese journalists and lawyers, critical to the regime, that previously frequently have been talking to reporters from Sweden and other democratic countries are now removed to unknown places, leaving friends and family to uncertainty. The surrounding world thought the Olympics would help China to get more democratic; however, In order to put China in a better light, the opponents to the government are censored; however, showing the surrounding world that the Chinese leaders have no opponents lowers the trustworthiness of the regime. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which China has signed, states that everyone has the right to freedom of Speech and the Press.
China has a history of oppression, presently being a communistic dictatorship, and historically, a monarchy with an emperor as absolute ruler. The most known case of violation of Human Rights is the demonstration at Tiananmen Square 1989 where students protested for their rights, but were reduced to silence when the leaders of the regime forced them away with tanks. Peking is now cleaned and renovated to impress the Western World this summer, all to show China in its best light. Instead of boycotting the games, in order to show disapproval, Sweden sends our best sportsmen, and thus indirectly supports the regime. A similar situation arouse in 1936 when Nazi-Germany was allowed to have the Olympics in Berlin. The occasion became a big propaganda-show-off, and a big Nazi-ceremony was shown. The games were seen as a ridicule of the Olympic spirit and meaning. Germany already had concentration camps, and the surrounding world was, as today, aware of that the host country was oppressing its citizens and that it was a dictatorship. What differs between these situations is that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was not yet written at the time the games in Berlin took place. China, however, is a member of the UN’s Security Council and is fully aware of the organization’s rules when it comes to Human Rights. Still, they are not followed.
By attending the Olympic Games in Berlin 1936, one of the history’s worst dictators was supported. Only a few years later Hitler started the 2nd World War and the holocaust, which made the world understand there was need for a Human Rights Declaration. Hitler was, because of the Versailles treaty, not allowed to increase the army, but the world did not take action against Nazi-Germany when the country highered their military output and created a super-army. Presently, China has been increasing their army cost with 15% per year, and just as Nazi-Germany told the world; it is only meant for defence and the country’s own safety. China has the world’s biggest army, and with modern weapon systems, it is a great power today which could become a superpower worthy taken seriously. Considered the events after the ignored armament by Hitler’s Nazi-Germany in the 1930s, it is important that this country develops its army alongside with its democracy.
Even though Sweden never skipped the Olympics, it is feasible to boycott the Olympics. Sports are in fact often used for showing political standpoints. In 1980, the Soviet Union was host country, and because of its less of democracy and violation of the Human Rights, the Games were boycotted by among others the USA. Whether the fall of the Soviet Union possibly could be related to the boycotted Olympic Games is hard to tell, however the development into a democracy such as after the Soviet Games is desirous for China after the Olympic Games, especially in contrast to the development after the Olympic Games 1936. To open up the borders for foreign countries is a good sign; however, it has been shown that what actually affected the Soviet Union was the boycott, not the actual games. In a communism such as China or the Soviet Union, the people are often unaware of the oppression in their own county, for example are many Chinese unconscious of the previous mentioned events at Tiananmen Square. A participation in the Beijing Games could show the Chinese people that the world accepts the regime and that China is a good host for the Games. A boycott on the other hand shows the opposite.
Not only do the Chinese regime’s crimes against Universal Declaration Human Rights affect its own citizens, but also it uses the Olympic Games to restrict the rest of the world’s freedom of speech. The British sportsmen are forced to sign “no criticism contracts” to ensure that critic against the regime will not occur. The same thing happened in Berlin 1938, only two years after the Olympic Games there, when the English soccer team was forced to Nazi salute. Concessions of this sort are obviously symbolic, however sports and politics have always been connected in a complicated way, and sports have throughout history been a way for politicians to show their opinions. In addition to what is said above, the Olympic Games in Berlin 1936 and the Soccer games 1938 could be counted as a link in the chain of events that gave Hitler the confidence to start the war and starting his plan of world domination including the crimes against humanity.
The reason why Germany 1936 was given the honour of hosting the Olympic Games was that they had been promised to host it in 1916, but since the First World War started it was not feasible. Hitler and his party stabilised the economy and got Germany to develop its industry, and this is exactly what is happening in China. The industrialisation of China and the boom in the economy has strengthened the country’s position in the world, and the multinational co operations’ presence gives China an increased influence over the Western world, even though the country apparently do not share the “Western values” of Human Rights and democracy, since their lack of freedom is palpable. Nazi-Germany was ruled by Adolf Hitler, whose undemocratic thoughts were shown in “Mein Kampf”. He was no supporter of human rights, and Nazi-Germany under his dictatorial steering killed 13 million people. The economical upswing is consequently another common denominator between the two dictatorships, and economical factors do thus play a large role in the question of the Olympic Games. The sponsorships from different countries are worth billions of US Dollars and apparently carry larger weight than the oppression of a billion Chinese.
In conclusion, the boycotting handling of the OG in Moscow 1980 was followed by a democratisation and end of a communistic dictatorship, while the years following the participated Olympic Games in Berlin are the known as the worst in the history of mankind. The similarities between China and the interwar periodic Germany are perceptible, the military armament, the oppression of dissident and the ascendant economy. An ignorance of historic events is dangerous. To support the Olympic Games in China is consequently unethical. The Olympic Games and the notion of democracy have the same cradle, and are by all means connected. As well as the Olympic sportsmen are assumed to follow the rules, it stands to reason that the countries of the United Nations follow the Declaration of Human Rights they all have agreed on. History tends to repeat itself; and even though no one knows what will happen in the future, the period following the Berlin Olympic Games is a warning example too big to ignore. If the country hosting one of the most important symbolic events for democracy and peace gets acceptance without following the Human Rights, the world has put itself in a fairly undesired situation.
|
