Why the World Should Not Boycott the Beijing Olympics

"Citius, Altius, Fortius", or "Faster, Stronger, Higher" in English. The famous Olympics slogan breaks down man's physicals endeavours to the simplest possible level.

Ever since the advent of the modern Olympics in 1896 in Athens, the 'Games' have embodied the celebration of the human spirit. But over the course of the next century, as the Olympics became more and more commercialized and complex, the event has seen some tumultous times.

The infamous 1936 Berlin Olympics, the pride of Hitler and his Third Reich, preceded the horrors of World War II. The U.S, a minor sporting power back then, sent a contingent amid much controversy. Avery Brundage, the U.S Olympic Committee chairmain, said, "politics has no place in sport".

The 1980 Moscow Olympics were held in the era of the Cold War, and was boycotted by several Western governments. The U.S, by now the pre-eminent sporting power, led the boycott. The USSR duly reciprocated by refusing to participate in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, taking 14 other countries with it.

Personally, I have never been a advocate for boycotting the Olympics for one simple reason: the sheer ineffectiveness of the approach.

More records were set in the boycott-affected 1980 Olympics than the previous edition in Montreal in 1976. Often, positive human stories have triumphed over negative national policies. Jesse Owens, the celebrated African-American athlete who won four gold medals in the Berlin Olympics, famously stated that he was treated much better in Nazi Germany than he was in his own country, which was still heavily segregated then. One could argue that this was a crucial chapter in the eventual change in America's segregationist policy.

Which brings us to the present-day wherein Western government are debating boycotting the 2008 Beijing Olympics. But the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibetans, and the person who probably has more at stake than any other leader in this saga, has not called for a boycott. While this is being attributed to his pacifist, non-confrontational mindset, there is more to it than meets the eye.

Recently, Tibet has seen a massive Chinese investment, some of it with bad effects, such as a huge influx of Chinese Han settlers, who are genealogically different from Tibetans. This will inevitably lead to ethnics strife in the future. But overall, Chinese money has had a positive impact on the lives of ordinary, impoverished Tibetans. The Dalai Lama knows this, and is tacitly acknowledging this fact. As well, He has publicly stated that he does not desire complete independence for Tibet, but only an 'autonomous' status.

The other reason is a bit more nuanced. His Holiness knows that a boycott will lose him his prime bargaining chip in negotiations with the Communist Party leadership. A confrontational approach now will further harden the resolve of the Chinese in holding on to Tibet by force. Instead, talks should be held with Beijing to force it to change its policy on Tibet, the Sudan, and environmental issues, such as a reduction in greenhouse gases.

The average Che-T-shirt-wearing, ultra-liberal activist cannot be blamed for simplistic reactions to such a complex issue. Even then, the effect of these misguided protestors is minimal at best. But at the geopolitical level, there needs to be an in-depth analysis of the ramifications of actions that may influence the lives of oridinary Tibetans, and indeed the rest of the world for the coming generation.