Bush and the Beijing Games

Anyone packing his bags for his 10th Olympics, as I am, departs for Beijing with precious few illusions about the modern Games. What they are not is some kind of collective ideal as envisioned by the Baron Pierre de Coubertin more than a century ago or, indeed, once upon an ancient time by the Greeks. What they are is a bloated corporate celebration in which the dollar, the ultimate gold medal, rules, and pretty much everything has been dirty, from the awarding of Games and contracts to the bloodstreams of celebrated athletes to the air everyone will be breathing in Beijing.

Everyone knows that the Olympics are tarnished. So as righteous as certain causes may be--from human rights in Darfur and Tibet to environmental and industrial travesties in China--I am skeptical of what is gained by encouraging politicians to boycott the Opening Ceremonies. It pains me to find myself in agreement on any matter with President Bush, who argues a boycott would be counterproductive. But I see little that would be gained and possibly much that would be lost by such a hollow gesture.

First, the president hardly represents any moral high ground, and his absence would not move a molehill let alone a mountain. Bush and diplomacy barely ever rate a mention in the same sentence. And I would hate to see the United States substitute another diplomatic slap in the face for the chance to make a rare overture to those with whom we have differences. If this president had a little more practice with the diplomacy thing, perhaps the United States wouldn't have been surprised by the double veto in the United Nations--by Russia and China--against attempts to sanction Zimbabwe for its sham election and violence against democracy.

Making every major global sporting event a political staging ground becomes a game of diminishing returns. How soon after Beijing will the outcry begin about South Africa hosting the 2010 World Cup? South African President Thabo Mbeki's stewardship of democracy in his region has been disastrous, and he has not only failed to mediate a settlement in Zimbabwe but to protect the refugees that flowed over the border into his country. Is there a single country that is pure enough to pass muster as a host of a major sporting event? I support the efforts of those who use the Olympic opportunity to assure that issues such as Darfur get an airing.  But now that an international court has indicted the president of Sudan for genocide, the whole world is watching. At this point, diplomacy, not one more thumb in the eye of the Chinese, is required to finally halt this nightmare in Darfur.

There are some less high-minded reasons for the United States to show some respect for this Olympic endeavor. As long as the country hopes to be a power in the Olympic movement, it behooves the president to attend the opening. First of all, we owe China a debt extending back almost a quarter of century. When the Soviet Union organized its boycott of Los Angeles '84, the inevitable tit-for-tat response to Jimmy Carter's boycott of Moscow '80, some feared that it would mark the end of the modern Olympics. The Soviet Union believed that the countries in its sphere of influence, which it expected would include all Third World nations, would stay home. When China indicated its intention to come to L.A., the Soviets couldn't even hold their own bloc, and countries like Romania and Yugoslavia competed in the '84 Games.

Furthermore, it is hard to recall a time when the United States was less popular in the world. That attitude is mirrored in an Olympic movement that, despite being led by moneyed interests, bears deep resentments against America for its shoddy, money-grubbing Atlanta Games that were followed by the Salt Lake City Games bribery scandal. Though New York City destroyed its bid for 2012 with its own political squabbling, the city's pathetic showing in the final vote reflected the world's hostility to American ambitions. If Bush had chosen to snub the Chinese hosts, the inevitable tit-for-that-tat would certainly sink Chicago 2016 and possibly any other American bid in the foreseeable future. You can bet that, with Madrid, Tokyo and Rio de Janeiro the major competition for 2016, nobody from Spain, Japan or Brazil is looking for ways to sabotage their bids.

I would be remiss if I suggested only pragmatic and geopolitical reasons to steer clear of the Opening Ceremonies. During the years of my Olympic sojourns, I have been privileged to witness mammoth social change reflected in that parade of nations, like the former Soviet republics marching under their own flags or the reunification of the German team for the first time since 1960. And hoped-for social change, too, such as the two Koreas marching under a unification flag. If the Games were not such a symbol of hope, terrorists--from the Black September group in Munich to an anti-abortion bomber in Atlanta--would not be so anxious to destroy them.

But the Olympics have provided far more than just symbolism. The Games have launched some of the most compelling athletes in history. Reading David Maraniss's new book, "Rome 1960: The Olympics that Saved the World," reminded me of how a single Olympics gave us: Muhammad Ali, already telling anyone and everyone that he would someday be "The Greatest"; Rafer Johnson, the decathlon gold-medalist after what is still one of the most stirring athletic duels I can recall; Abebe Bikila, the Ethiopian marathon champ who ran barefoot through the streets of Rome and heralded the arrival of so many great African runners, and Wilma Rudolph, the most graceful of sprinters, who won the world's heart.

The Olympics has certainly been the leading force in trying to put women's athletics on an equal footing with men's, and there are so many great stars--from Nadia Comaneci to Mary Lou Retton, from Peggy Fleming to Sarah Hughes, from Wilma Rudolph to Jackie Joyner-Kersee, from Donna de Varona to Janet Evans--who might be have never emerged from the agate type of newspapers had it not been for the Olympic showcase. And had it not been for that same showcase, we would never have witnessed, as he lit the Olympic torch in Atlanta, the transformation of Ali from reviled troublemaker to a singularly iconic American athlete nor understood the transformation of America that the choice of Ali for that honor reflected. And we in the United States might never have heard of the great Norwegian speed skater Johan Olav Koss, who used his Olympic glory as a springboard for the Right to Play campaign, which bring sports to youth in disadvantaged areas throughout the world.

Those who wish to attach other messages to the Beijing Olympics have already had tremendous success in doing so, and I expect that will continue throughout the Games. President Bush would add nothing to any of those causes. What he can do is stand as a symbol of this nation's respect for its Olympic athletes--not just the Kobes, LeBrons, Michael Phelpses and other superstars, but for the rowers, the wrestlers, the softball players and the rest for whom Beijing looms as a singular moment of recognition. And I for one am happy to see the president go to Beijing and do just that.