Now that China is about to host the next round of the
Olympic Games, it has become subject to increasing international criticism.
Such criticism has centered on two main topics: Sudan and Tibet. China has been
accused of assisting in the ongoing genocide in Darfur by refusing to cease
arms sales to the Sudanese government. Likewise, China has been accused of
long-running human rights abuses in Tibet.

The “free Tibet” demonstrations have historically
been very peaceful but have recently become more aggressive and violent. The
Tibet protests staged across Europe and the U.S. have resulted in near-deaths
on a number of occasions. Given that China has become a focus of both the
Olympic Games and the international economy, how much criticism does China
really deserve?

The international criticism directed at China on the subject
of Sudan has been growing since China won the bid to host the Olympic games.
The link between China and Sudan is that both have long-standing economic and
military ties. The trade essentially boils down to China selling the Sudanese
government weaponry and importing nearly two-thirds of Sudan’s oil. According
to the international community, China ought to cease such transactions and use
its ties to induce peace rather than fuel the conflict. Such beliefs resulted
in director Steven Spielberg’s withdrawal from being an artistic adviser to the
Chinese Olympics.

Is this criticism justified? At first, it would appear to
be, but the timing and the self-righteous tone is ridiculous.

Let us turn the situation around: Imagine if Israel were to
host the Olympic Games. Given that the U.S. provides most of the weapons used
to commit the overbearing and violent actions of the Israeli government, would
the same tone and the same pressures arise for the U.S. from the international
community to change the nature of its relationship with Israel? I don’t think
so.

So why is it alright to ask this of China? If we agree that
genocidal behavior is beyond immoral, then why not turn the light on ourselves
and analyze the nature of our diplomatic, military and economic ties? Until
this occurs, any sort of criticism hurled at China regarding Sudan is invalid.

Along with these criticisms comes the criticism of China
regarding its treatment of Tibet. Tibet was formed in the seventh century but
remained under Chinese rule until 1911. Approximately three decades later, the
People’s Republic of China was created and subsequently invaded Tibet,
reasserting Chinese control over the region. Since then, the Tibetan government
in exile, led by the Dalai Llama, has continued to fight for full autonomy.
They claim that Chinese actions in Tibet since its takeover in 1950 have been
catastrophic and have led to multiple human rights violations.

Even though full autonomy is an extremely important goal for
any country, the Chinese takeover of Tibet has for the most part improved
Tibetans standards of living. For instance, Tibetans are currently the
second-highest-paid workers in China; infant mortality in Tibet has fallen 43
percent since China took over; all highways currently running in Tibet were
built by the PRC; and life expectancy in Tibet has risen by approximately 32
years. The list of benefits distributed to the Tibetan people from the Chinese
government is rather impressive.

Such data leads one to wonder about the rather violent Tibet
protests surrounding the Olympic torch. It is not justifiable to set up
protests around the torch and especially to have them turn as violent as they
have. Here, again, there is an issue with the tone and timing of the protests.
The whole point of the Olympics is to bring the world together, not to divide
and point fingers. To rally around the torch, to attempt to put it out in order
to make a point, is demeaning to the very cause of the protesters.

Realistically, no nation is in a position to judge another.
I do not mean to suggest that the PRC is some sort of immaculate government but
that China is no different from most countries. There is not a single nation on
this planet that has always acted purely with justice in mind. Quite obviously,
China will have some problems in the way it chooses to develop both politically
and economically. But rather than merely judging, damning and tarnishing the
legacy of the Olympics, shouldn’t we instead be engaging in a dialogue for
change? That is, after all, what the Olympics Games are about: peace, unity and
conversation.

?

Wasim Salman ([email protected]) is a senior
majoring in international relations.