But the hosting of any international sporting event also makes a country vulnerable to scrutiny. Implicitly, every host country is inviting the world to view its nation, its people, and its policies. This level of attention needs to be managed from the outset—by China now, by South Africa for the hosting of the 2010 soccer World Cup, and by London for the 2012 Olympics.

China and Tibet
There is a need for a new form of dialogue that bridges East and West. For the past decade, the dominant dialogue between China and the West has been based on a common language of business, economic growth, and new markets. China, after all, represents a market share that offers huge potential for corporate growth and brand presence, particularly with an ever-burgeoning Chinese middle class whose sheer numbers dwarf most other markets.

This focus on business has dampened any visible dialogue on human rights issues with China, particularly in relation to the oppression of the Tibetan people. Tibet is also rarely discussed through official channels like the United Nations (UN), where China is a member of the Security Council—one of five countries with the final say on issues to be raised within the UN.

“Tibet was last tabled at the United Nations in 1961. Any movement forward on Tibet would not come from the United Nations as China will veto any decisive action,” says Guglielmo Verdirame, a barrister and lecturer in international law at Cambridge University, UK.

It is not surprising, then, that recent vocal calls by the West to the Chinese leadership referring to “engagement” may appear a little hypocritical given the degree to which they both benefit from the current dynamics.

From a reputation standpoint, Tibet is one of the main issues that divides China and much of its international audience. The Tibetan cause represents a significant "brand," built up over years of international lobbying with a strong global exile community. It is a cause with huge international empathy and interest, and its spiritual leader, the XIVth Dalai Lama, is its greatest asset. He is respected by many in the West, including senior political leaders, in a similar manner that South Africa’s former leader, Nelson Mandela, is globally revered.

A resolution on Tibet, and the Dalai Lama’s calls for autonomy within China, seem a long way off, but China’s hosting of the Games has finally put the issue on the front pages. It is possible that, if international pressure continues post-Beijing 2008, there may be some progress on Tibet and other human rights issues.

“The Olympics has often been a vehicle for progressing international relations—part of its process and role has been to positively impact on foreign relations, progressing certain issues to further resolution,” says Ellwood. “The world will be in a better place and have a more refined point of view post-Beijing. There will be greater fluency in issues like human rights and Tibet—that would not have happened without China hosting the Olympics.”

Brand China’s Future?
In August, China will demonstrate her economic achievements to the world in a staged performance that will, no doubt, be breathtaking. But a perfectly staged event will not end the controversy, and—for the sake of China's international image—must not replace dialogue. It may be that China’s sensitivity to her own global reputation will encourage a shift; it has been reported that the Chinese leadership is currently seeking an international PR agency. But there is also an obligation on western powers to find a common public terminology that is less threatening and more conducive to positive, progressive dialogue about human rights.

China’s domestic reputation may currently rest on Beijing 2008, but her international reputation lies on what will happen in the months and years after the Games: “Social change is a longer journey—it is not a moment in time like the Olympics,” says Ellwood. “People need to take a longer, more strategic view of these issues and remember that China has come a long way in a short time. There needs to be patience and a strategic plan from all sides.”    

[19-May-2008]