Cheers for Jamaica, mon

I'm almost glad the Jamaicans did so well in the 100-meter, with Bolt wining decisively in the men's and Jamaican women sweeping the medals. I've never been there, but I have a special affection for Jamaica, not only because I simply love the lyrical accent, but because their morning news radio show, the "Breakfast Club" has the good taste to ask me to appear (by phone, alas) a few times a year, usually when something simply horrible is happening in the Middle East. They saw a piece I did on Iraqi history and ethnic divisions just before the war and somehow decided I was some sort of expert. Anyway, I'm happy for the country.

And we have a new benchmark in commentary. I don't know who the girl is who comments on women's diving is, and I don't especially want to know. But my wife, who is never wrong, has pronounced her "worse than Dick Button," and that is a status that in her mind is difficult to achieve.

Olympian quibbles

Why don't the Americans sing, or at least lip-synch, the national anthem when they're on the medal stand. The Chinese certainly do, and athletes from most of the other countries. I know it's a ridiculously difficult song to sing, but nobody can hear you in that context. But they can see whether your lips are moving or you're yukking it up with your buddies. I'm not even a big one for overt displays of patriotism, but at least pretending you know the words seems a minimal thing to ask.

And interviewers everywhere (but especially at NBC apparently). Can we retire the tired old question, "What was going through your mind when . . ." You never get anything resembling an insightful answer because chances are, if you're referring to an athletic endeavor, nothing was going through your mind because the adrenalin rushing through your body blocked any possible thoughts, and thinking might have interrupted the focus needed to get the physical job done. I know it's hard to think of good questions for athletes who have just achieved something significant, in large part because most athletes seldom have anything very interesting to say (remember the people in high school who were the jocks? how many were mental giants?). But that question is particularly lame.

Olympics come at a price

And I'm not talking about what McDonald's and Coke and other companies have to pay to be sponsors (about $74 million, by the way). I'm not quite as hopeless a sports nut as my wife sometimes thinks I am, but I have a greater than average interest in athletic endeavors, even though my own accomplishments in the various sports I've tried were modest at best. So I suspect I will get caught up in the Beijing Olympics and watch more than is really good for me.

It's worth remembering, however, that the games this year will come at a price paid by Chinese beggars and street people (shipped out in droves to the provinces) and dissidents (jailed). The International Olympics Committee claimed in 2001 that giving the games to Beijing would lead to political and human-rights improvements, but whatever influence the IOC had (probably not much) was used hardly at all. China sees the games as the country's international coming-out party, and to be sure its economic growth in the last couple of decades has been remarkable. But it is still a one-party totalitarian state, and uses the totalitarian ways pretty brutally to try to improve what it sees as its image. If that means shipping thousands of beggars out of Beijing, so be it.

Here's the Register's editorial on the subject. And here's a fascinating article in the current issue of Foreign Policy that makes the argument that the Olympics do more harm than good. I don't share the author's horror at the growing commercialism of the games, but a lot of the political points he makes are quite accurate. Certainly when the IOC gives the Olympics to repressive regimes it almost always harms rather than helps the putative aspirations of serving justice and peace.

The political Olympics

Here's a link to the piece I did for the Register on the politics of the Olympic Games this year. Knowing me I'll watch too much of the Olympics as usual, and mostly enjoy them despite the venue. I think I understand the thinking of the IOC in awarding the games to Beijing -- encourage China to have a debutante moment as it joins the family of modern and (we cross our fingers and hope) nice, responsible modern nations. I think the mainland regime miscalculated, thinking it could keep doing the don't-interfere-in-our-internal affairs bit without arousing too much protest. Tibet put paid to that, but it wasn't going to happen anyway. They're just too blatant and clumsy in their repression and they don't improve matter by always waxing indignant. Doubt there will be a boycott (except for the meaningless open ceremonies), but the political points have been made. Wouldn't mind seeing more non-violent torch challenges.

Will a Beijing boycott work?

Here's a pretty good column by Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, arguing that the protests that have developed around the Olympic torch and threats to boycott the Olympics scheduled for Beijing in August not only won't work but are likely to have the perverse effect of stiffening Chinese stubbornness and sense of self-righteousness. I wouldn't be surprised if he's right that private pressure discreetly applied might be more effective than "face-destroying" public protests. Nonetheless, I hope the public protests continue. There's almost zero chance that anything will induce the Chinese to give up their claims to Tibet this year or any foreseeable mid-range future year. But the Chinese think in terms of decades and centuries, and the protests, especially if combined with a meeting with the Dalai Lama (unlikely in my view despite Zakaria's hopes) and a gradual reconsideration of the costs and benefits of continuing to "Sinify"Tibet could lead to a relaxation of controls and perhaps even more autonomy. Institutionally it's the Communist Party running things, but at this point they're much more pragmatic then ideological.

Here's a pretty good piece by journalist Don North that might help put some of the Tibetan issues in context.

Torching the Olympics

It was fascinating to watch the way various parties handled the scheduled run of the Olympic torch in San Francisco yesterday. I can understand the authorities' trepidation. San Francisco's Chinatown has the largest population of ethnic Chinese in any city outside China, many of whom welcome the idea of the Olympics being in China and were ready to celebrate. But various groups made it clear they planned to protest, and the potential for ugliness was palpable. I don't often like to give political authorities much credit, but in this case I thought they handled it pretty well.

I'm really pleased to see all the protests against the Beijing Olympics. As today's Register editorial says, it's unlikely to have an immediate impact on the Chinese regime in the near future except to get their hackles up. It's irrational for the Chinese to be so eager to keep Tibet, which is more a burr under the saddle than an asset, as part of China, but nation-states are often irrational. The protests, spoiling what the Chinese government hoped would be a successful debut as a world power, remind them that their system is deeply offensive to most people, despite its economic successes. If they were smart they would invite the Dalai Lama to the Games. He would probably come. But they may not be thinking strategically.

Over a longer term, the protests are likely to have some impact in softening the Chinese political system, though the Chinese will never admit it. It will be more than a little fascinating to see how it all plays out.