Mark Tewksbury is no coward. He wrote a book about being a gay jock. He was a loud critic of the ethics of the International Olympic Committee a few years ago. Now, he's talking about the Beijing Games, and I really hope his peers listen to what he has to say.
Mr. Tewksbury is the swimmer who won gold for Canada at the Barcelona Olympics in 1992. Last month, he introduced the Dalai Lama at a public event in Ottawa. In his remarks, Mr. Tewksbury questioned whether we can see the true Olympic spirit in the run-up to the 2008 summer games in China. I called him up to get him to elaborate.
Mr. Tewksbury points out that, while the IOC will make sure the host city has the proper facilities, it's unwilling to say that a host country can't sponsor a genocide.
"The Olympic Games as an entity, as a movement, is one of the institutions that really could have some influence on matters like this. And I just think it's really falling short."
Mr. Tewksbury (like the Dalai Lama) is not calling for a boycott of the Beijing Games, or for athletes to stay home. "The IOC chose to go to China. I don't think the athletes should be punished for that choice."
He says the institutions, not the athletes, have to try to use the occasion of the Games to influence China.
"I don't think the (Canadian) Olympic committee dares speak out because the International Olympic Committee isn't speaking out."
Chris Rudge, the CEO of Canada's Olympic committee, says the movement's influence comes from the example it sets, from the peaceful microcosm of the Olympic village. He says he already sees positive effects from these Games, such as the greening of Beijing.
If the Olympians take their Charter seriously, this argument isn't going to salve their consciences. We can all sing It's a Small World until we're blue in the face, but that's not going to stop China from beating up monks who support the Dalai Lama. Why would it? Where's the incentive? When the Olympic movement, whose Charter gives it a mandate to promote "the preservation of human dignity," says nothing about a host country's blatant abuses, the message to China is that the Olympic movement doesn't see any inconsistency between its Charter and the beating up of monks.
Mr. Rudge says it isn't the Olympic committee's role to engage in what he calls "political commentary." It's odd that he can talk about peace in the abstract, but whenever it gets specific, suddenly that's "political." He talks about not imposing "Canadian values" but the Olympic Charter talks about "respect for universal fundamental ethical principles." Not beating people up for their beliefs, it seems to me, is fundamental and universal.
The Olympic movement was founded as a social force, but now it seems to pride itself on having nothing to do with anything but sport. And tourism. And a lot of merchandise.
I also don't let the athletes off the hook as much as Mr. Tewksbury does. If you're going to Beijing to participate in an exercise in branding for the Chinese government, the least you can do is try to get a soundbite about Darfur into every interview.
Christopher Hitchens recently wrote an article in Slate about China's support of Burma that ended with a trenchant paragraph: "Meanwhile, everybody is getting ready for the lovely time they will have at the Beijing Olympics. If there could be a single demand that would fuse almost all the human rights demands of the contemporary world into one, it would be the call to boycott or cancel this disgusting celebration."
Mr. Hitchens is no naive activist; he's as cynical as they come, and no fan of the Dalai Lama. But he can usually grasp the obvious better than most. China props up the world's worst regimes and crushes its own people. And we're all going to China's party.
Paradoxically, one reason no one's been able to use the Beijing Games as a lever is that there are so many potential fulcrums: Tibet, Burma, Sudan, Zimbabwe, censorship, the environment, the Falun Gong or child labour.
Canada's athletes don't have to address all of China's policies. They could, though, put symbols onto their uniforms that indicate their support for human rights.
At the very least, the Olympic movement must never embarrass itself like this again.
It's not like the Beijing Games are a one-time screw-up. The IOC has chosen to hold the 2014 Winter Games in Russia, near Georgia and Chechnya. Presumably, this is to encourage Vladimir Putin to keep up his terrific work on behalf of human freedom in that area.
Mr. Tewksbury has a suggestion: the IOC should include an advisory senate composed of Nobel winners or other eminent global figures. They could be the caretakers of the Olympic ideals, or at least make sure the games don't do more harm to humanity than good.
Kate Heartfield is a member of the Citizen's editorial board. E-mail: kheartfield@thecitizen.canwest.com
Blog: ottawacitizen.com/worldnextdoor
