Let the Political Games Begin
Sports and politics have long been intertwined, according to Victor Cha, director of Asian studies, and he expects nothing different from the 2008 Beijing Olympics. In his upcoming book, "Beyond the Final Score: The Politics of Sport in Asia," Cha explores the political side of sports, such as the "pingpong diplomacy" of the 1970s. China’s invitation to American table tennis players to visit -- the first allowed since 1949 -- marked a thaw in relations between the two nations. Cha shared with the Blue & Gray his views on why the Summer Games will create lasting change and why President Bush shouldn't boycott the Olympics.
Q: Why do you think sports and politics are related?
A. Sports are certainly political, particularly international sports, whether you're talking about it being an object of terrorist attacks or a vehicle through which superpowers fought the Cold War for half a century. It's probably more political in Asia than anywhere else. That's because the Olympics don't come to Asia often. This is only the third time since 1896 that the Summer Games will come to Asia.
Sports can be a very effective tool for diplomacy. It doesn't engineer diplomatic breakthroughs on its own, but when you have a confluence of forces moving in the right direction, sporting events can really accelerate the diplomatic process.
Q: What is an example of that acceleration?
A. The most famous is pingpong diplomacy and Nixon's opening of China to the U.S. Everyone looks at that and thinks it caused the breakthrough in foreign relations between the two nations. It's not true. There was a confluence of other strategic forces at work. But when this happened with the pingpong team and the world reacted positively, it gave great momentum to the U.S.-China breakthrough.
I think that the Beijing Olympics will be a generator of more political change in China than people believe. Today, people look at what's happening in Tibet or the way China has cracked down on human rights, and they may think the Olympics won't change China at all. I think it will, and it already has.
Q: What are some changes you've seen?
A. When you have an event like the Olympics, it's such a big mark in terms of national image and identity. The city of Beijing got a complete facelift. Some $17 billion have been devoted to environmental clean up. These steps become springboards after the games for continued efforts. For example, while they might not be able to clean up the air entirely before the games, preparations have established a new threshold for where China is in cleaning up its environment.
Q: Have there also been changes in foreign policy as a result?
A. The government has come under tremendous pressure to change policy in places like Darfur (in Sudan) and Burma (also known as Myanmar) as the Olympic spotlight has shone on China. This has led to quiet, but significant changes in Chinese foreign policy.
In Darfur, for example, the Chinese have been much more helpful in getting the al-Bashir government to accept the United Nations/African Union peacekeeping plan. In the Burma case, last September, there was a big crackdown by the military regime against protests by Buddhist monks. Chinese arms sales to Burma went down after that incident, and China didn't stand in the way, as they normally do, of U.N. Security Council resolutions condemning the military regime's actions in Burma.
I don't think that either of these things would've happened if it weren't for the spotlight of the Olympics.
Q: Why do you refer to this situation as a Catch-22 in your book?
A. China wants the limelight of the Olympics to show what a great country they are, but you pay the price for that limelight. If they don't heed the pressure to change policies, then all of these attempts to show China is a great, responsible country are undercut.
Q: Are domestic changes following suit?
A. No. Whether it's political dissidents, AIDS activists, freedom of the Chinese press or the rights of migrant workers who have been brought to Beijing to work on Olympic preparations, these people have been ruthlessly put down. That aspect hasn't changed and I don't expect it to.
Q: Considering the foreign policy changes, why haven't critics let up pressure?
A.People acknowledge there have been changes, but it's basically tactical. People think China is only interested in winning a lot of gold medals and hosting the games perfectly. It's just not that simple. It's my opinion that even though those are temporary and tactical changes, they sow the seeds for deeper change in China.
Q: How so?
A. When you make a change like they have made in the spotlight of the Olympics, you've raised the expectations of the world that you will do more. I call this the slippery slope -- every time they make one change, they face more pressure to do more. The aspect of change no one is focusing on is Chinese nationalism. We've seen what's happened with the torch relays and how groups disrupt them. The some Chinese worldwide see that as an attempt to ruin their moment in the spotlight, and it creates a great deal of reactive nationalism.
Q: Do you see that nationalism as a force of lasting change?
A. That sort of populist nationalism is not easily controllable. Today, it could be directed against the West, but tomorrow, it could be easily directed against the government. We're really not going to know how much change it will create until long after the games.
Q: What do you think of calls to boycott the Summer Games?
A. It's coming from a lot of international NGOs (nongovernmental organizations), and it's contrary to what Chinese organizations want. They want people to come so they can show them all of the bad things happening.
Q: President Bush has indicated he won't boycott the games or the opening ceremony. Is that the right call?
A. I think he should go. There is a sports purism view that sports should be about sports, and that's what the Olympic charter states. President Bush adheres to that.
The president can be a lot more effective in terms of requiring better changes from China by talking to them while he's at the games, instead of not going. The president of the United States can be extremely effective sitting next to the president of China at the Olympics, telling him, ‘You've got to do better.' That's the most effective way to get change in China, not by boycotting.
Q: Have groups backed off pressure in light of the recent earthquake out of sympathy?
A. There is just a lull right now because international NGOs mobilized during the torch relay, but the torch is done with the international relay legs and is back in China. The closer we get to the games, the more and more calls there will to boycott.
-- By Lauren Burgoon, Blue & Gray Assistant Editor
July 7, 2008
