Did The IOC Really Believe China Would Change?

Philip M. Stone April 14, 2008

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) took a big gamble back in 2001 when it awarded China the 2008 Beijing Olympics. There were legal documents signed and moral commitments given but the bottom line was that everyone believed China in the intervening years would work on improving its human rights and press freedom records and that would be good for the world’s democracy. Now, just a few months before the Games are held, the recriminations begin.

Jacques Rogge, then just a Belgian delegate, said at the time of giving China the Games, “I think the message was that the IOC wanted to open a country that represents one-quarter of mankind and had never organized the Games before.”

But just last week that very same Rogge, now IOC President, told journalists in Beijing that the build-up to the Games was now in “crisis” and that he held “very frank and open discussion with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao”, and while Rogee has always kept to a “softly, softly” approach of privacy in his discussions with Chinese officials, apparently he said enough publicly last week to earn the ire of the Chinese foreign ministry that gently chastised him, telling reporters “"We believe IOC officials support the Beijing Olympics and adherence to the Olympic charter of not bringing in any irrelevant political factors. I hope IOC officials continue to adhere to principles of the Olympic charter,"

At least Rogge has accepted that the world wants to see that the IOC is really concerned about the human rights issue and he is pressing the Chinese thereon. Some media were already asking whether Rogge was the right man to handle the crisis – the FT Deutschland, for instance, wrote, “When he took office the Belgian (Rogge) had pointed to his role as a 'crisis manager.' In the meantime, a lot points to the how best this crisis can be managed -- without Rogge at the head of the IOC." Other newspapers have applauded his statements in Beijing, including the Chicago Tribune that wrote, “All in all, this week has included Rogge's finest hours in the seven years of his IOC presidency.”

The World Association of Newspapers (WAN) had written to Rogge before he arrived in Beijing last week to press the human rights and press freedom issues with the Chinese and now that he did WAN has welcomed Rogge’s public call for China to respect Olympic promises to improve human rights and urged that he continue the fight. “We would ask Dr. Rogge to continue pressing the Chinese authorities to honor their human rights promises, to release all the journalists being held in its prisons, and to allow journalists freedom to report,” said Timothy Balding, WAN CEO.

Rogge pointed out at a news conference last week in Beijing that China had not signed legal documents forcing it to act on its dismal human rights record but he said Chinese officials had promised that winning the Games “would advance the social agenda of China, including human rights. This is what I would call a moral engagement rather than a juridical one,” he said. “We definitely ask China to respect this moral engagement.”

Does the IOC regret its China decision? Rogge was asked that question after the terrible PR disasters of the torch running in London, Paris, and San Francisco and he replied, "I've said that it is very easy with hindsight to criticize the decision. It's easy to say now that this was not a wise and a sound decision."

In getting the Games, Yuan Welmin, the Chinese Sports Minister, readily admitted at the time, “China has certain areas where something is left to be desired.” But he said economic progress “will bring along advances in culture, health, education, sport and, not least of all, corresponding progress in human rights issues.” At the same time other senior Chinese officials promised that any protesters, including Tibetans, would be free to voice their opinions. "You can apply to demonstrate and the police will give you a time and place," said Wang Wei, secretary-general of the Beijing bid committee. "A successful bid would improve all facets of life in China, including education, health and human rights," he said.  But the Chinese media have recently begun to describe Tibetan activists as terrorists, so will the Chinese allow “terrorists” to demonstrate?

Liu Qi, mayor of Beijing, said back in 2001, "Hosting the Games will help promote our economic and social progress and benefit the further development of our human rights.”

Henry Kissinger, then an IOC auxiliary member – he basically provided political advice to the IOC but did not vote – said at the time, “I think this is a very important step in the evolution of China’s relation with the world. I think it will have a major impact in China, and on the whole, a positive impact, in the sense of giving them a high incentive for moderate conduct both internationally and domestically in the years ahead.” In other words he advised the IOC that politically it would be good for the world to give China the Games. 

Francois Carrard, IOC executive director, said bluntly at the time the overriding issue with giving China the Games was human rights. “Some people say, because of serious human rights issues, ‘We close the door and say no,’ the other way is to bet on openness. Bet on the fact that in the coming seven years, openness, progress and development in many areas will be such that the situation will be improved. We are taking the bet that seven years from now we will see many changes.”

Doesn’t take a genius to see that thus far the IOC has lost the bet. The most prophetic quote at the time came from Sidney Jones, Asia director for the Human Rights Watch. “We’re disappointed the IOC didn’t get guarantees from the Chinese government on human rights before giving the Games away. Now the burden is going to be on corporate sponsors and governments fielding teams to ensure that human rights abuses don’t take place in direct association with the Games. I don’t think the Games will change things on their own.”

And of course he was right. The IOC took a gamble that a “moral engagement” would work and a “legal engagement” was not necessary. Big mistake!

How the decision was actually made back in 2001 will probably remain secret but Bob Richardson, who was the chief operating officer for Toronto’s 2008 bid – Toronto came in second to Beijing – last week told the Toronto Star, “I’ve made a point of saying, look, partly the fix was in (for Beijing to win) …one IOC member said to me at the time we were bidding: ‘We have two choices here: one to go to a country of 30 million people that has had both summer and Winter Olympics in the last 50 years, or we can go to a country of 1 billion that has never had the Games. Our job is to expand sport throughout the globe. Which do you think is a better choice’? And that was the compelling argument.”

Asked on CBC Radio what he thinks of the current IOC uproar he said, “I don’t want to say I told you so – but I told you so.”

If the Chinese believe the protests and the publicity are bad now they must surely know it will only get worse. And the world’s media has made clear to Rogge and the IOC that “softly, softly” doesn’t do it anymore which really puts the IOC President in a bind because in his heart of hearts he knows the more he will bang on China in public the less progress he will see, and yet the world is demanding he be publicly firm. Tough job, but that’s why he gets the big bucks!

Just two examples of how the media is putting the screws on China to follow the “moral engagement”.  There’s a major free seminar being held in Paris April 18-19 called “Beijing Olympics 2008: Winning Press Freedom”.  Sponsored by Asia Presse (Paris), the Committee to Protect Journalists ((New York), Human Rights in China (New York, Hong Kong and Brussels), Reporters Sans Frontiers (Paris), the World Association of Newspapers (Paris) and the World Press Freedom Committee (Washington, D.C.) It is being underwritten by the John S. and James L Knight Foundation which means no registration fee and even the lunch on the first day is on the house.

With such heavyweights as Paul Steiger, former managing editor of the Wall Street Journal and the Chairman of the Committee to Protect Journalists, Steve Wilson, AP European Sports Editor and a member of the IOC Press Commission, Vincent Brossel, head of the Asia desk for Reporters Without Frontiers, and Jocelyn Ford, chair of the Media Freedoms Committee of the Foreign Correspondents Club of China among the speakers it’s an event sure to catch a lot of media comment. Already representatives from 35 countries, including China, have signed up,

And the World Association of Newspapers is inviting the world’s media to join its annual World Press Freedom Day campaign on May 3, this year dedicated to press freedom in China which it calls “the world’s biggest jailer of journalists.” WAN is making available for free cartoons by French cartoonist Michel Cambon (we’ve used one above) ,public service announcements created by major advertising agencies, editorials written by well known Chinese journalists and intended for op-ed pages, interactive maps and graphics showing where journalists were killed, arrested and imprisoned globally in 2007, photos provided by AFP especially for the World Press Freedom Day initiative, and special features targeted at young readers to encourage them to become aware of the press freedom fight for China. All materials are available in English, French, Spanish, German, Russian, and, of course, Chinese.

And there will be announcements upon announcement by various human rights groups on how bad things are in China. Amnesty International, for instance, last week issued a report saying “The current wave of oppression occurring in China is not in spite of the Olympic Games, but because of the Olympics.” The report claims that as the Games draw closer protests against the Chinese government have multiplied with the authorities responding with a “clean up” of “undesirables” and control over the media has intensified.

The group especially called upon the IOC and national governments to adopt a stronger position to stop human rights “abuses” in China.

Embarrassing banners will continue to be unfurled as they were on the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge last week, and even in Beijing as they were last August by Reporters without Frontiers -- and how will the Chinese handle the media during the Olympic torch’s planned travel through Tibet in mid-June?

China is said to have invested some $40 billion into holding a sporting event showing the world it has come of economic age. But the world also wants to see it has come of age  on human rights and press freedoms, too, and if it doesn’t do that then much of that $40 billion may well be wasted.

China still has time to fix things, but time is rapidly running out.