Should China Have Received the Olympic Bid? You Decide.

Today the question of whether or not China should have received the Olympic bid seems somewhat irrelevant.  It won the bid seven years ago in 2001, so the decision has clearly been made.  On the other hand, anyone who has caught a glimpse of the coverage of this year's international Olympic torch relay is well-aware that China's Olympic hosting duties are hardly a non-controversial event.   

Proponents of China's hosting duties acknowledge its growing significance within the international community, and don't think that Olympic hosting duties should be contingent on unrealistically high expectations placed on China. 

In contrast, opponents of Beijing's hosting duties maintain that Beijing's human rights record has been less than stellar, and in the months approaching the Games, laws and government crackdowns have become increasingly stringent. 

As this debate seems  and The Economist.com has showcased a debate contrasting the two sides.  Their proposition: "It was a mistake to award the Olympics to Beijing."  Right now, only 34% of participants agree with that proposition, versus the 66% who disagree with the proposition, and instead feel that China is the appropriate Olympic host.

Charles Freeman, Freeman Chair in China Studies for CSIS, contends that the Olympics will be a positive national development for China's citizens, and hosting the Olympics shouldn't be contingent on political events.  He also notes China's extreme changes over the past 30 years, which are a strong source of pride for Chinese.  

Gordon Chang, author of The Coming Collapse of China, disagrees.  He says "China is worse off for staging the extravaganza."  He points out two primary reason Beijing shouldn't host the Games: air pollution, and an "increasingly repressive" Chinese government. 

Beyond the featured participants, anyone can express their opinions, whether critical or complimentary, on the site's message boards.  

In a sense, the question of China's Olympic bid boils down to the larger question of whether you can separate politics from the Olympics.   

Many like to say that the Olympics are a non-political event, which they are, but with such a large international event, to some degree politics are always on the table.  Athletes aren't competing on behalf of themselves,; they're representing their countries.  

Furthermore, part of the benefits to host countries are political, not just economic.  For Beijing, the stakes are especially high, and the over $40 billion USD China has invested in the Olympic facilities isn't an inconsequential amount.   Even though the high Olympic hotel and restaurant prices will provide substantial revenue for the city, the potential political capital gained from hosting a successful event could be much higher. 

To some extent, both proponents and opponents of China's Olympic bid benefit from the fact that, for better or worse, the Olympics are not completely devoid of political consequence. 

For China's supporters, the Olympics has given China the opportunity to present itself on the global stage in a positive light.  Conversely the international significance of the Olympics in China has given its critics a unique platform to broadcast their grievances in front of a much larger audience.

At this point, China's upcoming Olympic hosting duties are no longer in question.  Instead, the question to watch will be how China's supporters and critics will use their international platform this August.