Olympics chief rejects boycott over Tibet

Sky

Sky

M A K A
link
BASSETERRE, St. Kitts (AP) -- The president of the International Olympic Committee rejected the idea of boycotting the Summer Games in Beijing over China's crackdown in Tibet, saying it would only hurt athletes.

"We believe that the boycott doesn't solve anything," Jacques Rogge told reporters Saturday on this Caribbean island. "On the contrary, it is penalizing innocent athletes and it is stopping the organization from something that definitely is worthwhile organizing."
Demonstrations against Chinese rule in Tibet on Friday -- the most violent riots there in nearly two decades -- left at least 30 protesters dead, according to a Tibetan exile group. Tibetan exiles in India reported as many as 100 dead.
China ordered tourists out of Tibet's capital and troops patrolled the streets on Saturday.
On a six-day tour of the Caribbean, Rogge expressed condolences for the victims and said he hopes calm will be restored immediately. He declined to say whether the committee would change its stance if violence continues or more people are killed.
"The International Olympic Committee has consistently resisted calls for a boycott of the Olympic games," Rogge said. He declined to comment further on Tibet during a brief news conference.
The head of the Swiss Olympic Committee told state-owned DRS radio that he is against a boycott but wants the IOC to intervene with China over the troubles in Tibet.
"The Rubicon has been crossed," Joerg Schild said. "I can't bring myself to say that we're going to go there and do sport."
IOC vice president Thomas Bach said the committee will speak with China about human rights, but boycotting the games "would be the wrong way because that will cut lines of communication."
European officials joined the IOC in urging Beijing to end the violence and engage in dialogue, but also said politics should not intrude on the spirit of the games.
"The Olympics must be held in an atmosphere of true brotherhood," EU Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner Franco Frattini told Italy's ANSA news agency. "Otherwise this feast of sport would be seriously at risk."
At least four major boycotts have occurred in Olympic history, but they mostly resulted in undue punishment for athletes, said David Wallechinsky, an author and vice president of the International Society of Olympic Historians.
It is unlikely the IOC would support a boycott despite the recent violence in Tibet, he said. The committee held the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City even though authorities had killed hundreds of nonviolent protesters days before the event, Wallechinsky said.
He condemned, however, the decision to host the games in China.
"The IOC asked for trouble when they put the Olympics in a country run by a dictatorship," he said. "Now it's come back to haunt them."
Click to expand...
lawl...

and 1k post!!!
 
i agree with the olympics chief, boycotts are not constructive and besides tibet being occupied happened decades ago, this is hardly news that tibetans dont like it
 
Haha. Well fuck me, the IOC saying a boycott isn't good for the Olympics and may hurt some athletes. The IOC is a decadent organisation that would say what it would to enable the party to go on.

I think the Olympics are a waste of time (and I even disagree with their fundamental stance on performance enhancing drugs, so we don't get along in general--Dick Pound can just fuck right the hell off). Wasting large resources on nationalistic pride enduced by running or throwing a javelin etc. better than the other guy. Anyone want to take a look at the world and think this actually promotes understanding?

Any athletes want to have a career, fine. But the Olympics just rub me the wrong way. But I'd rather have my taxes going to pay for infrastructure, education, research, things of this nature. I know they are underfunded here (and in many places), yet this government (and others) insist on putting on some ego trip of a party to show the world how cool they are.

Of course, this stance has nothing to do with China. I will say that anyone (especially one in charge of a country) who feels this (what's happening right now in Tibet, the "People's War") isn't right should not feel like partying with the IOC boys in Beijing. Just ignore the opulent waste that is being paid for from the taxpayers' pocketbooks. (Is the concept of "taxpayers' money" one that is widely held in China? I'm not even certain they think like that.)

Ah... that was nice.
 
Guess I'm expecting this year's Olympics to be horribly out of spirit.

But then again, the politically and economically expedient kowtowing to Beijing already had me feeling that way as soon as the city was announced.
 
Hello there, Neville.

I will be interested to see how the pollution in Beijing affects things. Though, I'm torn as to whether I'll bother watching anything. (A world record holder pulled out of an event in the games due to concerns the pollution would be a danger in the long running event.)
 
Boycotting won't achieve anything...the best thing one can do (one who opposes China's occupation of Tibet) is to go and win and then Say something pro Tibetan....If black boycotted Hitler's Olympics he would have been happy, the fact that they did not and the fact that the won was actually the best punishment for Hitler.


@Dionysus,
The big countries started this ego shit, just like little kids, cause they couldn't engage in a fight they chose the Olympics as their battle ground....this is way I prefer special Olympics to the Olympics, there the participation and spirt counts not the first place.
 
GrimaH said:
The Olympics aren't supposed to be associated with politics in the first place.
Click to expand...

By now, it's nothing new. Please excuse the impromptu presentation, as this was just a Quickie-Wiki:

The 1956 Melbourne Olympics were the first Olympics that were boycotted by the Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland, because of the repression of the Hungarian Uprising by the Soviet Union; additionally, Cambodia, Egypt, Iraq, and Lebanon, boycotted the games due to the Suez Crisis.

In 1972 and 1976, a large number of African countries threatened the IOC with a boycott, to force them to ban South Africa, Rhodesia, and New Zealand. The IOC conceded in the first 2 cases, but refused in 1976 because the boycott was prompted by a New Zealand rugby union tour to South Africa, and rugby was not an Olympic sport. The countries withdrew their teams after the games had started; some African athletes had already competed. A lot of sympathy was felt for the athletes forced by their governments to leave the Olympic Village; there was little sympathy outside Africa for the governments' attitude. Twenty-two countries (Guyana was the only non-African nation) boycotted the Montreal Olympics because New Zealand was not banned.

Also in 1976, due to pressure from the People's Republic of China (PRC), Canada told the team from the Republic of China (Taiwan) that it could not compete at the Montreal Summer Olympics under the name "Republic of China" despite a compromise that would have allowed Taiwan to use the ROC flag and anthem. The Republic of China refused and as a result did not participate again until 1984, when it returned under the name "Chinese Taipei" and used a special flag.

In 1980 and 1984, the Cold War opponents boycotted each other's games. Sixty-five nations refused to compete at the Moscow Olympics in 1980 because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but 16 nations from Western Europe did compete at the Moscow Olympics. The boycott reduced the number of nations participating to only 81, the lowest number of nations to compete since 1956. The Soviet Union and 14 of its Eastern Bloc partners (except Romania) countered by skipping the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984, arguing the safety of their athletes could not be guaranteed there and "chauvinistic sentiments and an anti-Soviet hysteria are being whipped up in the United States".

The 1984 boycotters staged their own Friendship Games in July-August.
Click to expand...

fghj said:
China is like Germany under Hitler. Do not anger them.
Click to expand...

Or they'll what? We've got nukes, too. :nuts
 
GrimaH said:
Um.

"We're too dependent on them" + "they stop doing business with us" = .....
Click to expand...

= "lots of people bitching and whining then we adapt"

As it is the lack of standards China has on what it trades to us is disgusting.
 
drache said:
= "lots of people bitching and whining then we adapt"
Click to expand...

You mean "an even greater global economic crisis", right?

Either way, the relationship is mutual - China can't keep up it's crazy GDP growth without the revenue from export to the US.
 
mislead said:
You mean "an even greater global economic crisis", right?

Either way, the relationship is mutual - China can't keep up it's crazy GDP growth without the revenue from export to the US.
Click to expand...

Which means we, America, have the upper hand in demaning assurances of manufacturing and even that China actually behave nicely to it's people.
 
mislead said:
You mean "an even greater global economic crisis", right?

Either way, the relationship is mutual - China can't keep up it's crazy GDP growth without the revenue from export to the US.
Click to expand...
Yeah but Chinese government seems to be using economy like an army. They're protecting their companies, not people and don't care for ratings etc. Meaning, if they have to, they won't care if 100 million or such people lose their jobs or die if it means winning the big picture. I hope I make any sense.
 
What Jacque Rogge said: "We believe that the boycott doesn't solve anything. On the contrary, it is penalizing innocent athletes and it is stopping the organization from something that definitely is worthwhile organizing."

What I heard: "Money, money, money. We like money and China has a lot of money to money our money. Stopping money is bad. LOL MONEY!"
 
drache said:
Which means we, America, have the upper hand in demaning assurances of manufacturing and even that China actually behave nicely to it's people.
Click to expand...

Uh, no, I don't really see how an agreement that keeps both of your countries' economies running gives either side an upper hand.

fghj said:
Yeah but Chinese government seems to be using economy like an army. They're protecting their companies, not people and don't care for ratings etc. Meaning, if they have to, they won't care if 100 million or such people lose their jobs or die if it means winning the big picture. I hope I make any sense.
Click to expand...

You make sense, but you're wrong nonetheless. China, economically, is like a guy running through a field of hot coal - if he stops, or even slows down, he's really going to feel the pain. And while China's establishment might not care about the common Chinese folk, they do care about their own power. If China goes into a recession, or even stagnation, they might be facing huge protests, and maybe even some kind of revolution (not necessarily of a violent sort, a radical change in the Party leadership would work too).

The current China isn't the same as it was under Mao's rule, just like the current Russia isn't the same as it was under Stalin.
 
fghj said:
Or they'll stop doing business with you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's bad for Wal-Mart. :p But it could be good for what little America has left in the way of domestic production.

mislead said:
Either way, the relationship is mutual - China can't keep up it's crazy GDP growth without the revenue from export to the US.
Click to expand...

Dude's got a point. Economics is a two-way street. China can't sanction anything without hurting itself in the process. Might even hasten some much-needed human- and labor-rights reforms over there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom