FT.com / In depth - Will China’s Olympics be ...

Will China’s Olympics be a success?
Published: February 19 2008 12:10 | Last updated: February 22 2008 15:16

This year’sBeijing Olympic games will be China’s biggest ever international event and has been billed as the “coming-out party” for a new global power. Yet despite Beijing’s wish to use the games to showcase the country’s economic success, cultural splendours and modernisation ambitions, the focus from overseas has been elsewhere.
Western criticism over foreign policy, human rights, media censorship and poor environmental record has threatened to cast a shadow over the games. Hollywood film directorSteven Spielberg recently withdrew as an artistic advisor to the games, becoming the latest high-profile figure to voice their discontent with China’s lack of assertiveness in trying to end the violence in Sudan’s Darfur region. There are also concerns among athletes and coaches about food safety, Beijing’s chronic air pollution, and whether or not athletes will be free to express themselves at the games.
Drew Thompson, director of China studies at the Nixon Center in Washington DC, said in a recentarticle: “The Beijing Olympics poses uncertain risks and challenges for the organizers and foreign corporate sponsors” and these companies should consider how they should respond to events that could have a negative effect on their image.
So is China ready to host the games and the 500,000 foreign visitors who will converge on Beijing in August? Can Beijing succeed in using the games to show that the world’s most populous nation is both economically successful and progressive? What political, economic and social impact will the games have on China itself and its people?
Mr Thompson has answered readers’ questions in a live Q&A.
.....................................................................................................................
As was the case with the 1936 Berlin Olympics, does not supporting the 2008 Beijing Olympics strike a sour note in view of China’s egregious record of human rights violations? Your article seems to be written from the perspective of multinational corporations which have an obvious vested interest in supporting this event. But instead of offering up a hymn to business as usual, should not everyone who cares about freedom and human dignity be singing a very different song?
Roger Algase, New York
Drew Thompson: The Chinese government has strongly resisted the notion that being host of the Olympics should be linked to political issues related to either their domestic or foreign policies. In 1936, there was heated debate in the U.S. about whether or not to boycott the Berlin Olympics. Ultimately in 1936, the U.S. Olympic committee decided that the Olympics are about sport, not politics and the U.S. team participated.
Certainly, my article cited in the introduction to this on-line session was written for a business audience in that particular publication. I think it is pretty clear to Olympic sponsors that the 2008 Olympics are not business as usual. Undoubtedly, the Beijing Olympics present enormous opportunities as well as challenges unlike previous Olympics in Greece, Italy and Australia. Along with an enormous consumer market and brisk economic growth, China has different norms and standards from the west, including how they conduct their foreign policy and how they address their domestic security. Those different norms present a persistent challenge to all companies investing in China, during the Olympics and after. However, most companies firmly believe that their presence in China, as high-profile employers, provide them the opportunity to demonstrate international standards for behaviour to their employees and customers.
.....................................................................................................................
In your opinion, what will be the most relevant legacy of the Olympic Games for the Chinese?
Enio Gualberto, Brazil
Drew Thompson: The most visible legacy will be infrastructure investment, particularly in Beijing. Beijing has a new airport terminal and its subway has added 90 new stations and tripled its length. The Olympics has dramatically changed the Beijing skyline and significantly contributed to the country’s economic growth over the past six years.
Environmental investments will also have a tangible impact in improving living standards in the area, but perhaps more importantly, the focus on the environment has helped shape public expectations in China. Chinese officials far from Beijing have increased their appreciation for environmental protection and face greater risk if they disregard environmental regulations. The average Chinese citizen has greater expectations for improved environmental quality and will increasingly call on the government to uphold their own publicly stated standards. The Olympics will make it increasingly hard for officials and the public to accept environmental degradation and the subsequently reduced quality of life as the price of economic development.
However, the ”intangible legacy” of the games should not be discounted. The Olympics presents the possibility that international and domestic media should enjoy greater freedom. The Olympics has laid bare the gap in standards for media freedom between China and the West. It is an open question if China’s human rights situation will improve because of the Olympics. IOC President Jacques Rogge has publicly stated that, “We are convinced that the Olympic Games will improve human rights in China.” Beijing’s mayor and chairman of the Beijing Olympic Bid committee stated in 2001 that “Hosting the Games will help raise the living standard of the Chinese people and speed up China”s reform.
While critics point to continued oppression and optimists point to steady improvements in social freedoms, the Olympics undoubtedly have prompted intellectuals and leaders to consider China’s human rights and political conditions, which will undoubtedly lead to continued reforms.
Perhaps the greatest intangible legacy of the Olympics is the boost to the national pride of the Chinese people.
.....................................................................................................................
Hollywood film director Steven Spielberg recently withdrew as an artistic advisor to the Olympic games to show his discontent with Chinese status in Sudan’s Darfur region. Do you think he made too big a deal? I am afraid other people or countries might follow suit. Isn’t taking this as a political chip to press Beijing over its foreign policy against the basic principle of Olympic Games?
Angela
Drew Thompson: Steven Spielberg’s decision was obviously his own and reflect his personal beliefs, rather than those of the International Olympic Committee. He did try to leverage his position to engage Chinese leaders to discuss the Darfur situation, but he was obviously not satisfied with the level of access and the substance of the dialogue. I think it is hard to accuse him of ”making a big deal” of the situation. He released a terse press release that was subsequently transmitted widely by activist groups and the media. I have not seen evidence that he is engaging in more visible activities and he has indicated in other statements that he is supportive of the Olympics and the Chinese government as hosts.
The Chinese government has tried several approaches to de-link the Olympics from Chinese foreign policy. For instance, the People’s Daily addressed the Darfur accusation by stating, ”The Darfur problem was not created by China and is not in any way related to China’s policies in Africa ... Linking the Darfur problem to the Beijing Olympics is unfair.” The government has also tried to discredit individuals and organisations that are promoting specific causes and attempting to link them to the Olympics, though those attempts have been less credible and successful. For instance, some Chinese have claimed that certain groups have ulterior motives and are backed by governments, the media and energy companies. I think these perceptions are pretty inaccurate and Chinese analysts seriously underestimate the interest that Darfur has generated in US grass-roots groups such as churches. The major groups, Dream for Darfur and the Save Darfur Coalition have extensive resources, though there is little authoritative evidence of their sources of support. I personally find it unlikely that many of these activists would take money from large corporations, such as energy companies, as it could potentially undermine their own credibility. As for the relationship between activists and the media, there is little doubt that the relationship between the media and the activists is unexceptional. The Save Darfur Coalition spent $5.8m in advertising between October 2005 and September 2006.
Without a doubt, activist groups do have a clear ulterior motive when it comes to China and the Olympics. High profile activities such as this provide NGOs a consummate opportunity to promote their cause and increase their profile, which leads to greater support and resources. Of course, it can be argued that from the start, China has positioned the Olympics as a showcase on China’s achievements, opening the door to international scrutiny.
Forgotten in much of this debate is what can actually be done about the situation in Sudan. China will not be coerced to disengage economically from Sudan. Arguably, other nations, such as India, would step in to fill any gaps left by China. That said, China is not against working with the international community, such as the UN to help improve the situation. Regional instabilities does not serve China’s interests, so even if it does not have philosophical or moral motivations to prevent government-sponsored abuses, it gains little by shielding rogue regimes. China is also supportive of collective security principles and was instrumental in pressuring the Sudanese government to accept foreign peacekeepers and China has contributed its own troops to the UN-African Union mission. China’s argument that “more can be done by all” is an invitation to other countries to work collaboratively and constructively with it towards solutions, though those countries must recognise that China’s principles often differ from US and European ones.
.....................................................................................................................
China is well known for exercising very tight controls over information flows and the internet. Will they succeed in imposing a cordon sanitaire between its own nationals’ internet access and that of foreign visitors? Further, do sponsors not run a major reputation risk by associating themselves with a regime which whilst cloaking itself in a more user friendly light at present can be brutal when it sees itself threatened?
Peter Salmon, New Zealand
Drew Thompson: China has proven to be very adept at controlling information flows within China. China has also been able to effectively filter internet access in what has been termed “the great firewall”. The Chinese government is not overly concerned about visitors to the Olympics accessing the internet. Olympic visitors will have access to the internet, and athletes are permitted to blog, so long as they follow International Olympic Committee (IOC) guidelines. There will be little official tolerance for overtly political statements.
The primary concern is ensuring that information flows, including the internet, broadcast media and text messages, are tightly controlled for the Chinese of the population. The majority of athletes are not expected to engage in extensive political blogging or other forms of political activism. They are athletes who will come to Beijing and compete in a sporting event in which they have invested considerable preparation, so it is important to recognise their priorities. That said, by all indications, China’s security apparatus will be on heightened alert during the Olympic period and will actively seek to prevent any information that it deems subversive or a potential security threat, regardless of the source.
Companies certainly face a reputation risk by sponsoring the Beijing Olympics. The Olympics and the sponsors will be under intense scrutiny by the media and activist community seeking to leverage the attention brought by the Olympics. Some organisations have pledged to engage in political activities in Beijing during the games, some of which might target sponsors. Others have called on viewers to ”turn off” advertisements in a symbolic protest. However, many companies consider the allure of the large China market and the prospect of such a highly anticipated Olympic event worth the potential risks of supporting them.
.....................................................................................................................
It has been reported that the US Olympic team will bring their own food to the Olympics. Isn’t the government doing everything they can to ensure that food served to athletes is safe?
FT.com
Drew Thompson: Australian Olympic officials recently admitted that several athletes became sick participating in Olympic test events in Beijing. Other athletes have also reported in their blogs becoming sick while in Beijing for training. The cause of these illnesses is not clear, and might be caused by unsafe raw materials, or more likely, improper food handling practices. Despite assurances that all food served in the Olympic village will be safe, confidence in the overall food supply system remains low.
The food supply system from farm to table is a long chain which is particularly difficult to monitor in China and does not lend itself well to quick fixes. For example, agricultural markets are awash in illegal and counterfeit pesticides, fertilizers and veterinary drugs. At the farm level, many transactions are conducted in cash with no paperwork to support tracking and tracing. Even carefully vetted, world-standard food processors in China express concern about the quality of raw materials that they process. While Chinese officials might blame the international media for hyping food safety problems, the crisis of confidence in China’s food safety is not a conspiracy to discredit it but a genuine concern about the government’s capacity to effectively regulate food production practices.
However, Chinese officials are certainly pulling out all the stops to prevent any embarrassing incidents from occurring during the Olympics, particularly in the case of food safety. Massive investments in technology and oversight have been put in place, including close circuit TV and mice taste testers. Unfortunately, creating a bubble around the Olympic village will do little to restore faith in the overall system, and potentially highlights embarrassing gaps and shortfalls in safety in the market beyond Beijing.
.....................................................................................................................
Should Beijing have been allowed the games in the first place? The totalitarian nature of the nation and its human rights abuses are hardly new.
Allan Mackenzie, Sheffield
Drew Thompson: Four years after the turmoil of 1989, China applied to be the host of the 2000 the Olympic games. In 1993, the US actively opposed China’s bid citing its human rights record, resulting in anti-American sentiments rising in China. (The UK fared better in Chinese public opinion, as Manchester was a serious contender until the end when their bid committee withdrew and backed Sydney.) Despite feeling humiliated by US opposition, the Chinese Olympic Committee did not call for a boycott of the 1996 games in Atlanta. Of course, in 2001, the Chinese re-applied and were successful. While there was opposition in the US Congress to China’s bid, the Bush administration did not oppose it.
The International Olympic Committee has always sought strict neutrality, as suggested by the location of its headquarters in Switzerland. While the Olympic charter expresses ideals, it does not advocate one form of government over another, and selection of host cities is broadly driven by the bid committee’s argument that the host city has the organising capacity to develop facilities and mobilise resources for the event. While the majority of modern Olympic Games have historically been held in North America and Europe, none has been held in less developed countries. The Moscow was awarded the Olympics in 1974 indicating that Communism was no barrier to being an Olympic host. The 1988 Seoul Olympics were awarded to a then military dictatorship.
The underlying question is whether or not the ”world community” should engage China and seek its integration. I am of the opinion that it is better to engage China and integrate them into international systems, rather than isolating them. Economic development in China has led to more moderate policymaking, improved living standards, and greatly relaxed social controls and greater political freedom. China is slowly heading away from the strict totalitarianism of its past towards a more pluralistic society. The question is not whether or not the trends are in the right direction, but whether or not ”we” (as opposed to the Chinese themselves) are satisfied with the pace. The Olympics are certainly a key milestone in China’s reform and opening period which was begun 30 years ago and will undoubtedly contribute to those positive trends over the long term.
.....................................................................................................................
In your article Kosovo and Asia, you suggested China freeze its military build-up across the strait from Taiwan. Do you think this should also be an issue to pressure China on before the Olympics? What would be the implications of this gala for promoting democracy in China?
Gi-chung Lee, Seoul
Drew Thompson: China’s military modernisation is a cause for anxiety in the region. US military leaders express concerns not only about the Chinese military’s transparency, but also about their lack of understanding about China’s intentions, which is much more worrisome. The culture of secrecy within China’s military, coupled with growing military capabilities and the potential for conflict over Taiwan create the possibility for misunderstanding and miscalculation (which is policy speak for shots fired in anger). Linking China’s military modernisation process or Taiwan’s status to the Olympics could be detrimental to the objective of preventing conflict and increasing western understanding China military rise. Reducing the risk of conflict and increasing understanding and confidence between China and other militaries is increased and sustained engagement and dialogue.
The Olympics have historically proven to be important catalysts for political reform, as the 1988 Seoul Olympics demonstrated. China currently has a very active debate amongst government elites about the nature of future political reforms. The word “democracy” is increasingly uttered by senior leaders, and there is discussion of other concepts that are currently under-developed in China, such as “checks and balances.” However, there is little expectation that China will suddenly become a liberal democracy in the foreseeable future. The Communist Party has given no indication that it will tolerate the existence of an opposition party, even as it considers expansion of “inner-party democracy” and greater political freedoms such as the growth of civil society and increased media freedoms.
.....................................................................................................................
With 20,000+ foreign journalists in Beijing for the Games, how willing will Chinese authorities be to use force to break up political demonstrations? Or will they be more willing to tolerate public protests as a sign of a more open stance?
Jonathan Males, London
Will websites such as Blogger that have been banned by the Chinese government be opened to the public after the Olympics? If the games can improve certain Chinese policies, will these improvements be maintained after the games, or will they be rolled back?
Hooray Chining, Nanjing, China
Drew Thompson: To answer the above two questions. Freedom of expression has been a critical issue surrounding the Beijing Olympics. In late 2007, China announced that it would relax restrictions for foreign media, permitting journalists with freedom to travel throughout the country and interview sources without prior permission. Those regulations, however, will be rescinded in October 2008, though there are hopes that Chinese officials will extend the regulations, normalising these new standards.
Though they are reportedly under consideration, no such freedoms have yet been extended to the internet, so it is impossible to say if any changes will survive after the games. Many websites are blocked including mainstream media outlets. I have seen no indication that officials are willing to completely open the internet however and any opening will likely be selective. High-profile news sites and other mainstream sites are likely candidates. I can not foresee authorities permitting access to sites that discuss Taiwan, Tibet, Falungong, Chinese political issues or sexual matters. These will be off limits topics for the foreseeable future.
With the presence of so many international visitors and media, the world attention will be on Beijing during the Games. The possibility of unrest and demonstrations is real, as is the threat of terrorism. Security officials are well prepared to manage the Games, having invested millions of dollars in hardware and training. Olympic officials have conducted extensive studies of ”adverse events” at previous Olympics and how they were dealt with. Coordination with embassies and security details from around the world has been ongoing. Four levels of security will be in place in Beijing to ensure safety; including the police, military armed police, private security guards and civilian volunteers.
Rather than dealing with protests, the authorities will seek to prevent any gathering that will present a problem. In addition to the state security bureau, there is a nation-wide intelligence network of offices dedicated to preventing and quickly concluding disturbances. Any gathering outside of official Olympic events will require organisers to apply for a permit. Approvals are unlikely to be forthcoming for protests, providing authorities the opportunity to prevent demonstrations from coalescing. For events that do emerge, the security forces in Beijing will be particularly careful to prevent violence and will likely only resort to the use of force in the most extreme circumstances.
The Chinese government has made a clearly stated commitment to holding a successful Olympics. That will include dealing with all adverse events, such as demonstrations, in an appropriate manner.
.....................................................................................................................
Japan has become a favoured destination of choice for Western athletes, in particular from Germany, UK, Australia and Netherlands, to train ahead of the Olympics. Officials claim that pollution in Beijing was not an issue in their decision, but anyone experiencing China’s smog on its worst days will argue otherwise. Other than current persisting pollution curb measures, what do you recommend the Chinese government do more to prevent this trend from becoming more pronounced?
Sue Anne, Shanghai
Drew Thompson: Beijing’s smog and dust storms have been an obvious source of embarrassment for Chinese officials. Certainly, efforts have been made, including relocating factories, investing in clean technologies and planting trees. There are also many short term fixes in the works which will ensure that the skies in August are relatively blue, such as reducing the numbers of cars on the road, stopping work at construction sites, and reportedly even ordering other provinces to cut back on manufacturing and other polluting activities. Unfortunately, there are some unresolved issues that contribute to the atmosphere of uncertainty.
Firstly, Chinese officials have been less than transparent about pollution levels. Official statistics are dubious, collection processes are opaque and Chinese standards and definitions differ from international norms, such as those set out by WHO. This contributes to a lack of confidence and reasonable concern on the part of experts who advise international athletes.
Secondly, it is unclear if China can force surrounding provinces to cut production and reduce emissions during the Olympics. Environmental laws are widely flouted and edicts from Beijing regularly ignored by local officials. Beijing’s pollution is caused locally as well as regionally. This problem is compounded to some extent by “solutions,” such as upgrading Beijing’s taxi fleet to natural gas vehicles and replacing city buses with lower emission models. Unfortunately, like the factories moved out of Beijing, the older cars and buses were shipped out of town and are now operating “upwind” of Beijing in other provinces.
For well funded national Olympic teams, the decision to train outside of China prior to the games is likely a calculation based on a number of factors, not just air quality. While there has been massive investment in building Olympic venues and training facilities in Beijing, they may not meet the expectations of many committees. Training in a nearby country also provides additional privacy prior to competition, allowing top athletes to practice their secret strategies and, to borrow from Deng Xiaoping, “hide their capabilities.” With many contests decided by a fraction of a second, athletes and their teams seek every possible advantage and are not necessarily concerned with the political interpretation of their strategic decisions.
.....................................................................................................................
How much do you think the Special Oympics that took place in Shanghai in 2007 offers an indication of the upcoming Beijing Games? The special Olympics was generally regarded as a real success in terms of organisation and they put on an amazing closing show. However the real difference was the enthusiasm, attention and pride of the people in Shanghai. This is what I feel the key factor in the success of the Beijing Olympics.
Conor Griffin, Shanghai
Drew Thompson: In recent years, China has held several international major events which have provided insights into the expected Olympic experience. In 1990, Beijing hosted the Asian Games in what was expected to be a demonstration to the international community of its suitability to host the Olympics. The social and political mobilisation to organise the games in 1990 certainly provided the foundation for the current Olympics. However, comparing that experience with the current preparations for the Olympic games, one can begin to perceive how sophisticated China is today, compared to 1990. The enthusiasm of Chinese citizens for the Olympics is undeniable. Hundreds of thousands of citizens have volunteered to work at the games, compared to the comparably coerced mobilisation of 1990 where employees of state owned enterprises were “volunteered” to work, and government employees had their wages garnished to help finance the games.
President Bush has committed to attending the games, identifying China’s pride in hosting the games, along with the opportunity to engage China as his prime motivators for attending. He was quoted as saying that the Olympics will be a ”great moment of pride for the Chinese people,” and a “moment where China’s leaders can use the opportunity to show confidence by demonstrating a commitment to greater openness and tolerance.”