OLYMPIC VOTE OR JOKE?

By Andy Sawada

 (Editor’s note: Recently, Andy Sawada, a longtime COWAC conference volunteer and now a teacher at an elementary school in Peterborough wrote to describe his feelings about the Olympic bids. Andy was not content to merely pout about the dreadful situation; he took positive action and wrote to several newspapers. It’s fitting that with his brand of activism, he has been appointed the 'social justice' chairman at his school. The first project is to implement a composting program to help alleviate the garbage problem. That would make for a terrific project at all schools.)

             I became annoyed with all of the Olympic talk and sent out letters to the editor (e-mail) concerning my disdain about the Olympic decision making process. I sent e-mails to several papers; my letter was printed in the two local Peterborough papers, the Montreal Gazette, The Toronto Sun and the Calgary Sun. I thought you would like to read it and perhaps students might like to argue/analyze it! I wrote it before the voting took place.

            This week, the International Olympic committee meets in Russia to award the 2008 summer Olympics. There should be no surprise, as China will be awarded the games, despite numerous known human rights abuses and violations. How have we evolved when we award a country that continuously and without remorse, violates the international charter of human rights?               

            How happy I was to hear that the European Parliament passed a resolution that calls for the International Olympic committee to not award the games to Beijing because of their inexcusable record on human rights violations. It is high time that a government body made such a stand for humanity.

            Surprisingly, the Charter of the Olympic Games states that the Olympics has as a goal “to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of humankind, with the object of creating a peaceful society with the preservation of human dignity”.

How can the International Olympic committee then award the games to China, a country that represses the freedom of opinion and the freedom to hold demonstrations in favour of democracy?

            China continuously represses religious, ethnic and other minorities, in particular Tibetans, Uighurs and Mongolians and the Falun Gong movement. A sad situation exists today in Tibet. China has raped Tibet of its resources, religion and culture. It has destroyed over 1600 Tibetan monasteries and refuses to allow Tibetans the right and privilege to restore and respect the unique culture of Tibet.

How can the International Olympic committee, in the interest of “preservation of human dignity” award the games to a country that imprisons and tortures Tibetans who adhere to the practice of non-violence?

            Speaking of torture, with over one thousand ‘reported' executions last year and widespread reports of torture and imprisonment without trial, how can the International Olympic committee award the games to China?

            Think about China’s deplorable record on animal rights and the environment. China painted the ground green to make it look ‘respectable' when being judged by the International Olympic committee. What about the recurrent water shortages and the unlimited use of fossil fuels? When a country has over a million people living in poverty, why award them the Olympic games, which costs an astronomical amount of money to be effectively run?

            Holding the games in Beijing also means moving some of the city's ‘inhabitants' from the old city as well as destruction of the historic old city. Moving the citizens of the city to host the games? I guess this is a good plan for the International Olympic Committee!

            I agree with the European parliament. Not until the People's Republic of China can demonstrate an ability to ‘uphold universal human, civil and political rights, including freedom of religion' should they be considered to host the Olympics.

            After the Salt Lake City scandal, it is quite clear that the International Olympic committee is more interested in political games than athletic excellence. The games are not awarded to the best-qualified host, and this year, it will be no surprise once again.

(Ed’s note: Andy’s prediction was correct. With China joining the WTO, it was no surprise either that multi-nationals and American big business interests helped to sponsor a substantial amount of the cost of Beijing’s bid. The potential consumerism about to be exploited in China, involving one-fifth of the world population, weighs far more heavily in the greedy minds of entrepreneurs than any concern with basic human rights. The Olympic selection committee and the countries that supported China’s bid should be ashamed of their blatant hypocrisy.)