This year, the Olympic torch, a worldwide symbol of cultural understanding, athleticism and peace, has in some cities seen more armed guards along its course than it has athletes.
The torch is currently in Australia, at its 17th stop along the 85,000-mile course meant to generate global excitement for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. But, marred by protests against China’s human rights record and the political unrest in Tibet, the relay has generated much more than just camaraderie.
Thousands of protesters both for and against China’s hosting of the games greeted the Olympic torch during the San Francisco relay early this month, causing officials to change the route and abruptly cancel the closing ceremonies.
Similar demonstrations in Paris and London resulted in arrests and small scuffles between security forces and protesters.
Even passersby on Bruin Walk recently caught a glimpse of the dissent, as demonstrators from all sides of the political spectrum voiced their opinions regarding the Olympic Games and the relationship between China and Tibet on April 15.
But, despite the efforts of protesters, the complexity of the issues surrounding the 2008 Olympics extends beyond signs and catchy slogans. A bird’s eye view of this month’s events, as well as an understanding of the issues, is vital to interpreting these events.
Some demonstrators have called for a widespread boycott of the Olympic Games while others have simply called world leaders to boycott the opening ceremonies in solidarity with Tibet.
Kalaya’an Mendoza, the grassroots coordinator of Students for a Free Tibet, said that, while he does not want to interrupt the Olympic Games out of respect for the athletes, he hopes the protests will draw global support for Tibetans.
“The focus (of the protests) is going to be on China’s human rights abuses and their use of the Olympics to legitimize their brutal occupation of Tibet,” Mendoza said.
What Mendoza refers to as the “brutal occupation of Tibet” has been a subject of global controversy for roughly 50 years.
Tibet is an autonomous region of the People’s Republic of China and is ruled by its Communist government. However, many Tibetans look to the Dalai Lama as a political and spiritual leader, despite his exile from Tibet to India at the hands of the Chinese government, and desire a greater level of autonomy similar to that of Hong Kong.
When the International Olympics Committee awarded the 2008 games to Beijing seven years ago, Mendoza said he was initially devastated.
“A lot of people were dismayed and angry that China got it. Then we realized that the eyes of the world would be focused on China for this, and it would be a monumental opportunity for the Tibet movement,” Mendoza said.
The often volatile relationship between China and Tibet further deteriorated mid-March when clashes between Tibetan rioters and Chinese police forces resulted in at least 13 confirmed deaths.
“They were initially peaceful protests and then the police used force to disperse them and there was a violent reaction,” said Lowell Dittmer, a political science professor at UC Berkeley and the editor of Asian Survey, a publication of Berkeley’s Institute of East Asian Studies.
Dittmer pointed to divergent media coverage of the violence in Lhasa, the capitol of Tibet, as the source of a great deal of global confusion surrounding the incident.
“There’s a disconnect between the two media coverages, with the Western media focusing on police brutality and the Chinese media focusing on the Tibetan violence,” Dittmer said.
Political science Professor Richard Baum said the protests stemming from last month’s rioting in Lhasa were, at least in part, a matter of timing.
“Even though it looks like the Tibetans initiated the violence, people saw it through the lens of China’s problems with human rights abuses in Tibet. This came just on the eve of the Olympic torch relay, and supporters of Tibetan independence used the relay to express their anger,” Baum said. “You have a polarization that’s going on, and tempers are frayed on all sides.”
Jacques Rogge, president of the International Olympic Committee called the Olympic games a “catalyst for change” in a press release in which he addressed the protests.
“We believe that China will change by opening up the country to the scrutiny of the world through the 25,000 media who will attend the games,” he said.
Rogge called the events in Tibet a matter “of great concern” to the committee, but he insisted that it is neither a political nor an activist organization.
“The IOC has already expressed the hope that this conflict should be resolved peacefully as soon as possible. Violence for whatever reason is contrary to the Olympic values and spirit,” Rogge said.
Mendoza said that he has too much respect for the athletes to call for an Olympic boycott, but he hopes to see increasing global support for Tibet as the games draw nearer.
“What we want is for world leaders to not attend the opening ceremonies and for Tibet to be taken off the torch relay route,” Mendoza said.
While Mendoza said he hopes that the political protests will eventually bring a greater level of autonomy to the Tibetan people, Baum maintains that the protests have the opposite effect.
“Bashing, lecturing or humiliating China are not things that work. The only thing that works is patient pressure over time, and the Chinese government is reacting in exactly the opposite way as people want,” Baum said. “It just offended large numbers of Chinese people.”
While he said that politicians would have to make their own personal choices as to whether or not they will attend the opening ceremonies in August, Baum maintained that it should remain a personal choice, not a political statement.
“The word “˜boycott’ is a political word, and I am against using it. I think that the games should not be politicized. It raises (not attending the opening ceremony) to the level of an anti-China gesture, and that doesn’t help,” Baum said. “You get a polarization of opinion, not a melding of the minds.”