Join our Mailing List

"As long as human rights are violated, there can be no foundation for peace. How can peace grow where speaking the truth is itself a crime?"

IOC in Fear of Beijing Crackdown

June 8, 2008

There are deep anxieties within the IOC about the games in August,
and underlying concerns about the rejection of Doha's bid for 2016
Paul Kelso
Guardian (UK)
aturday June 7 2008

The opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympic games is just 62 days
away, and across the Chinese capital clocks count the days. Among
International Olympic Committee executives and members gathered in
Athens this week they are counting the hours to a different landmark:
"Everyone is counting the days to the opening ceremony," said one
senior figure. "Me? I'm looking forward to reaching the closing
ceremony on August 24 and getting on the plane home."

Publicly the IOC expresses complete confidence in China's
preparations, but behind the optimism lie deep anxieties about the
most politically-charged and culturally challenging games in Olympic history.

Many of the senior officials in Athens this week arrived direct from
Beijing where they held a series of crisis talks with the authorities
following the imposition of a huge security clampdown and a new level
of government-led bureaucracy that threatens to disrupt the smooth
running of the games.

As well as concerns over making the games work, there are genuine
fears that athletes who choose to speak out against the Chinese
regime, critical media and any individuals daring to protest publicly
could prompt a huge backlash from the authorities and the general public.

At the heart of the IOC's concerns is the political fallout from
events of the last three months. Riots in Lahsa, Tibet in March
prompted a global wave of anti-Chinese protests which found a
convenient focal point in the hapless Beijing Olympic torch relay.
What Beijing hoped would be a triumph degenerated into a tawdry
public relations fiasco that damaged both China and the IOC.

The response in Beijing has been dramatic. Shaken by events, the
Chinese authorities have ordered a huge security clampdown on Olympic
sites that threatened to disrupt basic games operations.

According to seasoned Sinophiles in the Olympic movement there has
also been a tangible hardening of the public and official mood too.
The attacks on the torch relay came as a genuine shock to many
Chinese, who feel their country has been unfairly traduced. There is
bemusement too at the actions of NGOs including Amnesty that have
called on athletes to speak out against the Beijing government. The
Chinese code of hospitality does not include insulting your host, and
the reaction of the authorities and public to anyone who does
criticise China is the great unknown of this Olympiad.

The collision of 20,000 journalists, 10,000 athletes and thousands of
foreign spectators with the Chinese is causing acute unease within
the IOC, and some influential figures fear that any backlash could be
damaging to both the games and the Olympic movement.

Most sensitive is the issue of athletes speaking out. The IOC charter
prohibits "propaganda and demonstrations", and the IOC has promised
to apply "common sense" when assessing whether the line has been
crossed by, for example, the wearing of a Free Tibet T-shirt or an
inflammatory press-conference comment.

There are no such guarantees from the elaborate Chinese security
apparatus, however, and the current mood in Beijing gives little
cause of optimism that they will be indulgent of dissent.

There are technical fears too. The Chinese central government has
taken a tighter grip on the project in the wake of Lahsa, restricting
the ability of the Beijing organising committee (Bocog), with which
the IOC has worked for seven years, to take meaningful decisions.

New security arrangements have been imposed at many venues, and the
IOC fear that the three-cordon procedure proposed by Beijing could
prevent athletes, officials and media - the three categories
prioritised by the IOC - from being able to smoothly attend venues.

Broadcasters already setting up operations in the city have also
experienced difficulties, encountering restricted vehicle access to
stadia and finding that permits for filming outside venues are
currently taking 21 days to process. With the games lasting just 17
days the drawbacks are obvious.

The IOC's task in trying to resolve some of these issues has been
made harder by the introduction of a new level of bureaucracy
revealed today. A two-tier command structure has been imposed, with
central government officials leading the top tier and Bocog officials
and the mayor dealing with day-to-day operations. With decisions
during the games usually having to be taken swiftly, the structure
poses a major challenge to the smooth running of the games.

Hein Verbruggen, the chairman of the IOC co-ordination commission
that has steered the Beijing games since 2001, acknowledges the
challenge. "The biggest challenge that we face is bureaucracy," he
said this week. "The Chinese way is to plan everything to the finest
detail so there are a lot of procedures in place. But the hospitality
and friendliness of the people will be spectacular, and I am
absolutely certain the games will leave an incredible legacy for the country."

IOC president Jacques Rogge also expressed confidence that the games
would proceed smoothly, and that security arrangements would not
ultimately be overbearing: "We have asked the Chinese to try and find
the right balance between security and operations, and I have
confidence that they will do so," he said today.

For all the outward confidence, it would be no surprise if Rogge was
among those breathing a sigh of relief on August 25.
Doha rejection exposes weakness of the Olympics

When Rogge and his executive board gathered in Athens this week, they
knew the agenda was likely to be dominated by the race to host the 2016 games.

What they may not have expected was that a contest likely to be
dominated by marquee cities Rio de Janeiro, Chicago, Tokyo and Madrid
would be swamped in controversy surrounding the ejection of a small
Gulf state with more money than genuine prospects of success.

That is what happened however after Doha, the Qatari capital and the
first middle-eastern city to bid to host the games, was thrown out of
the race on Wednesday evening.

The decision may ultimately have proved correct - there are many
reasons why you might consider the tiny desert state an inappropriate
venue for the games, starting with the role of women and the
treatment of migrant workers - but the cack-handed execution and the
subsequent row reveals some deep-seated insecurities in the Olympic movement.

Officially Doha was junked from the race because its request to stage
the games in October 2016, thus avoiding the searing summer
temperatures of the IOC's preferred window between July 15 and August
31, was rejected.
According to bid insiders, Doha had been assured that the dates were
no barrier to inclusion in the race, and proceeded with a bid that on
technical merits was ranked above Rio and level with Chicago.

Rogge denies that the IOC misled the city, claiming that the decision
was made with the interests of athletes in mind. Doha's expulsion
still represented a wholesale rejection of the recommendations of the
IOC's technical committee, setting a precedent the movement may come to regret.

In the wake of the Salt Lake City scandal that exposed corruption in
the bidding process, Rogge oversaw a change in procedure that placed
technical merit above the political and personal whims of IOC
members. In Doha's case that approach appears to have been set aside,
ironically to help prevent a return to the culture of graft that
characterised old-school bidding.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Rogge and the executive
committee blocked Doha because they did not trust the full IOC
membership to make the correct decision in an open vote. The IOC
membership is capricious and unpredictable, and had Doha made it on
to the short list the full weight of its petro-dollar fortune would
have been unleashed on the membership. For an organisation desperate
to remove the perception that its members' votes might be for sale,
that could have been disastrous.

Perhaps more seriously for the long-term health of the games, the
decision exposes the relative weakness of Olympic sport in the
international market.
An Olympics in October would pitch the games directly against the
European football leagues and the NFL and major league baseball in
the US. The IOC leadership know that with track-and-field at its
lowest ebb, discredited by drug scandals and pushed to the margins as
a consequence, the games would be crushed by a humiliating lack of interest.

Simply, the Olympic movement's only chance of sustaining interest
and, crucially, broadcast revenue is to sit in a summer window that
avoids competition. With the all-important TV negotiations for 2016
that will secure the IOC's medium-term future yet to begin, Rogge was
not prepared to allow even the remotest prospect that broadcasters
would be asked to pay billions for an autumn games in the desert.
CTC National Office 1425 René-Lévesque Blvd West, 3rd Floor, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H3G 1T7
T: (514) 487-0665   ctcoffice@tibet.ca
Developed by plank