Arguments for Beijing holding the Olympics focused on its exotic locale and culture. More implicit but, at least as important, was the hope that China would use the Olympics to open its country to a more democratic way of doing things. Skepticism still remained about China’s worthiness to host the Olympics because of the violent response in 1989 by the Chinese government to citizens seeking more openness in governmental policies.

The locale of Sydney provided little grist for debate on human rights. Original inhabitants of Australia, the Aborigines, could legitimately protest unfair treatment at the hands of the Australian government. However, by prevailing standards, Australia passed the test of free speech and concern for human rights. Olympics delegates could easily be seduced by the extraordinarily beautiful harbor and beaches offered by Sydney, without major pangs of guilt over basic freedoms being trampled.

As I sat glued to the television in a Sydney suburb, viewing the dramatic moment of decision, I secretly hoped that China would be chosen to host the Year 2000 Olympics. Of course, my companions, all Australians, saw things differently.

Advertisement

When Sydney won approval as the Olympic site, I wondered if the voters had given China sufficient consideration. Two years later, I have no doubts that choosing Sydney was the proper choice.

Comparing levels of freedom around the world often results in condescending attitudes by those doing the judging, who usually are from western, industrialized countries like Australia, Germany and the United States. Basing the decision of where to hold world meetings on how much freedom exists within a particular country inevitably ruffles feathers of those countries considered less free than others, such as China. Yet, recent actions by China demonstrate why holding international events in a restrictive environment entails a risk for participants.

The arrest and conviction of Harry Wu, an American citizen charged with gathering information about Chinese society, may not be an everyday occurrence when it comes to tourists visiting China. Mr. Wu apparently hid a camera and knowingly ran a foul of Chinese taboos on reporting about prison labor. However, the mere fact of his arrest could only send chills down the spines of prospective tourists. Do you dare stray off the beaten path to record a notable occurrence? After the incident of Mr. Wu, no assistance of safety by the Chinese government could be taken at face value.

Another recent policy by China that conflicts with necessary standards of being a world host concerns the non governmental women’s conference being held in the Beijing area. Hopeful participants in that conference originate from all over the world, including three persons from SIU.

The Chinese government has effectively delayed and, in some cases, even denied its issue of visas for that conference. For no apparent reasons, two of the SIU participants have encountered nightmarish experiences in obtaining visas allowing entry into China. With possibly a more coherent objective, the Chinese excluded as entire group of Latin American women from the visa process. Based on reports in the media, an underlying motive of the Chinese government with its foot dragging on visas was that of squelching points of view unfavorable to its polices.

Freedom to express opinions and travel may appear a western thing, with less relevance to non westerners. Perhaps through arrogance, westerners expect others to conform to their standards.

Still, for any country wishing to host the Olympics, an international conference, or other world event, the western penchant for basic freedoms harbors a universal value.

Advertisement*