Once every four years, the world arrives at a standstill. Peoples from all over the world gather to celebrate the peak of our physical prowess. And to celebrate with a spirit of camaraderie. A moment when national, racial and religious divide are forgotten. And when everyone exchanges smiles and handshakes.

Such is the essence of the Olympics. Or is it?

No doubt, the 2008 Beijing Olympics would be China’s crowning moment in its sudden, stunning meteoric rise from a sleeping giant to a global superpower. But as the Games loom ever closer, rumblings of discontent from the rest of the world have grown even louder.

In February 2008, the famous Hollywood film director Steven Spielberg (E.T., Jurassic Park, Schindler’s List) dropped a bombshell by withdrawing himself as artistic adviser to the 2008 Olympics. His main reason was China’s role and influence in the western Darfur conflict. He accused China of not doing enough to pressure the Sudanese government to end the “continuing human suffering” there.

He said: “At this point, my time and energy must be spent not on Olympic ceremonies, but on doing all I can to help bring an end to the unspeakable crimes against humanity that continue to be committed in Darfur”.

Predictably, his withdrawal has sparked much controversy. The Chinese authorities and media have categorically condemned him. The International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) has backed China. The rest of the world has shown mixed reactions.

Was Spielberg’s criticism, and his act of withdrawal, justified? First, let’s look at the western Darfur conflict. Since 2003, it has witnessed the estimated deaths of 200,000 people and the displacement of another 2.5 million. There is strong suspicion of mass ethnic-cleansing practices taking place, invoking memories of the Holocaust, Bosnia and Rwanda.

China’s support for the Sudanese government is no secret. It buys two-thirds of its oil from Sudan. In return, China sells weapons to the Sudanese government. Also, China has consistently opposed any motion in the United Nations Security Council to intervene in Western Darfur.

In short, the situation in Western Darfur is grave, and China is turning a blind eye towards it. Which begs the next question: is boycotting the 2008 Olympics the right thing to do? And therein lies the whole debate.

Isn’t this another portrayal of Western biasness? What right does the West have to criticize and boycott China for its human rights record, when it neither has a clean one? What about the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq? What about the acts of torture by the US military? Or the illegal terrorist cells all over Europe?

Also, Section 51 of the IOC Charter prohibits “any kind of demonstration, or political, religious or racial propaganda in the Olympic sites, venues or other areas”. This reflects the widespread belief that politics have no place in the Olympics.

Indeed, such are strong criticism to Spielberg’s boycott. Or any form of boycott, for that matter. But how much does it hold weight? At closer look, it does not.

Firstly, the 2008 Olympics is different. Even during its bid back in 2001, many quarters spoke out against China’s poor human rights record (remember Tianamen Squaure?). In response, China promised the IOC members to improve such record. Thus, it provides a legitimate basis for countries to question China’s hosting credentials.

Secondly, despite intended to be ‘politics-free’, there is nothing new about political-driven boycotts. In the 1936 Berlin Olympics, when dark clouds of Aryan ambition and anti-Semitism were already brewing, the US had seriously contemplated boycotting the event by not participating altogether (ultimately, they didn’t, which allowed for the legendary Jesse Owens to deal a dagger into the heart of Hitler’s crazed belief of Aryan supremacy).

In the 1980 Moscow Olympics, the US led a boycott in opposition of Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan. A total of 62 countries refuse to participate in it, including Canada, West Germany, Malaysia and yes, even China. The direct fallout of this was Russia’s and 13 of its allies’ boycott to the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. And finally, 28 African countries boycotted the 1976 Quebec Olympics because the IOC refuse to bar New Zealands participation. Earlier that year, New Zealand’s All Blacks rugby union team had made a tour at South Africa, during its apartheid regime days.

Thus, almost all countries have been guilty of politicising the Olympics. Any ‘double standards’ argument, like China’s present one, sounds hollow. Especially considering they have boycotted Russia, their then Communist rivals, before.

More importantly, the issue, here and now, is China. Not the US. Not the West. Not anyone else. Just because others are also responsible for human rights violations does not absolve one’s own responsibility. Consider a criminal trial. No judge or jury will buy the plea of an accused found guilty which runs like: “Look, it’s only fair to release me because there are other criminals roaming the streets freely and yet uncaught”.

The point is, China is at trial now. If any other country in the future finds itself in the same spot, the same principles would apply. When a country has promised to fulfil a political goal, it has to make good of it. Protesting that other countries have failed to reach that very goal, is simply no excuse for breaking the promise.

Now, back to Spielberg. Some people have question his choice of grievance i.e. Western Darfur, and his method of addressing it. True, attaching responsibility of Western Darfur’s atrocities to China is not as comparable as directly committing atrocities in another country (like the 1984 Moscow Olympics example). True, by fully explaining his reasons, he is surely aware of the impact and influence his boycott would have onto others.

But note that he made a personal decision. He did not publicly urge for countries to boycott the 2008 Olympics. Neither did he publicly urge for other directors to stop working for the 2008 Olympics (though it has led Daryl Goodrich, a UK director, to ponder about a similar withdrawal). Thus, for others to criticise him as an embodiment of Western ideals is clearly unjust. For all we know, if the roles were reversed, he would similarly turn his back on his own country. After all, many popular entertainment figures are not afraid to be critical of their own Western governments on human rights issues (e.g. Bono of U2, George Clooney).

Considering its human rights record, both domestically and internationally, should people start boycotting China? That is a very subjective question indeed. It’s up for individuals and governments to decide.

The point is that Olympics, and sports as a whole, cannot exist in a vacuum. It cannot be immune from social and political influences. Yes, people argue that sports should be about sports, and only about sports. But such people forget that sportspeople are also people, just like you and me. And people think about everything.

Yes, most sportspeople who enter the Olympics are motivated to participate for the sake of winning. For personal and national glory. But there are those who strive to make a difference, and to send a message to the world. Remember Jesse Owens?  He was driven not only to win for himself and country, but to score a valuable point against racial supremacy and discrimination.

There are already people like that in the arts. Filmmakers like Spielberg don’t only make films to fill his coffers, but also to enlighten people of the terrible atrocities men are capable of (‘Schlinder’s List’ - Nazi Holocaust, ‘Munich’ - the kidnapping and killings of 11 Israelian athletes at the 1972 Olympics). Musicians like Bono don’t only perform in concerts for ticket sales, but also to raise awareness and funds for the plight of debt-ridden Africans.

Through sports, films, and music, brave people have strived to make the world a better place. They are moved by emotions innate in the human heart. To stifle such emotions, is to stifle their humanity.

Of course, such emotions must be held in check. The politicising of the Olympics is inevitable, but that does not mean that everyone can freely abuse it for sinister and unjustified political gains.
 
Here, Spielberg was justified in his boycott. We might not agree that it was the right thing to do. But surely we must all agree that we all have, within reasonable means, the right to do what we think is right.

And that, I believe, includes boycotting the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Yes, it’s bad for sports. But surely taking a step closer to saving innocent lives more than makes up for it.

(This article is contributed by Raphael Kok, Law Student of University of Malaya)