"THIS 'SHUT up and play'? That's not OK. That's not the
Olympics." So wrote Sports Illustrated's Aditi Kinkhabwala,
joining a rising chorus of sportswriters criticizing the pre-emptive
repression of speech of Olympic athletes.
It's no doubt worthy of their ire. The British Olympic Association
told their teams in writing that they are forbidden to speak
out "on any politically sensitive issues." Other countries
have done the same.
Canadian Olympic Committee president Dick Pound made crystal
clear to the Canadian Olympians, "If it is so tough for
you that you can't bear not to say anything, then stay at home."
USA basketball and Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski said, "None
of these athletes [has] a responsibility to be political. They
have the responsibility to represent their country." And
IOC head Jacques Rogge has also said that "political factors"
need to be kept away from the Games.
(Article continues below)
This hypocrisy is mind-boggling. The entire reason the Olympics
are even in Beijing is political in nature--an effort by the
West to embrace China as a 21st century economic and military
superpower.
The Olympics were to be China's coming out party. Yet the recent
crackdown in Tibet has opened a Pandora's box, where athletes
and professional protestors are rushing to condemn every aspect
of China's market Stalinist economy: its treatment of Tibetans,
China's role in Darfur, labor rights abuses and environmental
concerns.
And that's just for starters. As we have seen in the recent
running of the Olympic torch--turned into a protester obstacle
course--everything is on the table. The repression of speech
by Olympic officials occurs precisely because many athletes
want to talk.
American softball player Jessica Mendoza, who won a bronze medal
in the Athens Games, is part of a coalition of more than 200
athletes called Team Darfur. She is planning to wear Team Darfur
wristbands in Beijing when she's not competing. "I don't
think it's my place to tell China what to do," she told
Vahe Gregorian of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. "But I do
think it's my place to tell people what is happening. I want
people to know that nearly 400,000 people have been killed in
Darfur since 2004."
Mendoza also invoked that ultimate moment when protest and
politics intersected, the Black Power salute of John Carlos
and Tommie Smith on a podium in the 1968 Mexico City Games.
Mendoza described it as "an effective use of their time
in the limelight"--even if they were "sent packing"
and expelled from Olympic Village. They otherwise might not
have been heard somewhere else," she said. "That was
a moment in time to watch."
AND YET, while I support the right of any athlete to speak
out and not be silenced by Olympic bureaucrats to make things
pleasant for China's rulers, we should also look critically
at what it is that people are protesting.
It speaks to a far different set of concerns than those represented
by Tommie Smith, John Carlos and the Olympic Project for Human
Rights.
Smith and Carlos came to Mexico City to raise awareness about
injustices happening in their own country. They wore no shoes
on the stand to protest poverty in the United States. They wore
beads to protest lynching in the United States. They wore gloves
and raised them during the playing of the anthem to signify
dissent against the way the African American Olympic athletes
were treated. As they said in their founding statement, "Why
should we run in Mexico City only to crawl home?"
Yet none of this 2008 crop of athletes is daring to say that
maybe protest begins at home. They are raising concerns about
China's policies in Tibet or Darfur, but not the U.S. wars in
Iraq or Afghanistan. There are concerns about China's labor
standards, but not the way their own sponsors, like Nike, exploit
those standards.
No wonder the head of the U.S. Olympic Committee, Chief Executive
Jim Scherr, issued a surprisingly benign statement that athletes
should "do what they want to do" but "shouldn't
feel undue pressure to be a part of someone else's cause."
But blaming China for the ills of the world ignores the stubborn
fact that there is a reason the games are in Beijing. Western
complicity in China's crimes isn't challenged by bashing China.
It's only covered up.