Open Mic: Forget Rivalry, the USA Should Embrace China's Success

A common concept that is regularly mentioned in conjunction with any Olympic Games is that of a “legacy”.

In choosing the hosts of the world’s biggest sporting event, the primary question for the voters is not, “how well can they host the Games?” but rather, “what legacy will hosting the Games leave?”

This legacy doesn’t even have to be sporting. Indeed, more often than not, sporting factors have nothing to do with such considerations. Seoul 1988, Athens 2004, London 2012—the decisions in awarding these Games were not made for the good of sport in those countries.

What has always been of utmost importance—almost ever since the Olympics happily went to Berlin in 1936 and came back all politicised—is the long-term social, political, and economic effects that the Games will have on the hosting nation.

Beijing 2008 was no different to any Games before it in this respect. For the voters on the IOC panel, giving the 2008 event to China was a way of formally inviting the world’s largest nation into international politics—helping to harness its undoubted potential.

For the USA and the other western nations, Beijing’s successful bid was greeted with enthusiasm. The Chinese, having agreed during the bidding process to expand the human rights of their people, had already made steps to integrate itself with the West.

Many politicians were privately optimistic that hosting the Olympics would further “westernize” the Asian nation.

Alarmingly for them, such hopes seem to have been way off the mark. In the run-up to the Games, the contentious activities of the Chinese government have only increased in frequency under the intense glare of the Olympic torch.

It seems the Chinese leadership have not softened their stance one bit. Indeed, they may have even strengthened it. At least the US would still dominate the sporting events, right?

Oh.

This has been the second alarming event for Americans, as the Chinese have planted themselves at the top of the medal table, and look likely to remain there. Even with the track events to come (a traditional strength for America), the table will probably not change at the top by the time the torch above the Bird’s Nest is extinguished.

Since overcoming the challenge of the USSR in the 1980’s, the USA have become used to ruling the Olympic medal table. Now, however, they find themselves struggling to even provide a challenge for their newest superpower rival.

Realistically, no one should be surprised—The Economist was just one of many publications who gave advance warning of the impending threat to US sporting dominance.

China had waited seven years for the Olympics (15 if you include their failed first bid). They were always going to make the most of it. If the Chinese faces were going to fill the sporting arenas, they might as well have something to cheer about.

They had fifteen years to assign sports to youngsters based on genetic markers, fifteen years to groom them and demand the sort of hard work, dedication, and training that no other country could hope to equal.

With over one billion people to choose from, it should be no surprise that China will top the medal table in 2008. Arguably the only real surprise is that they did not do it in 2004, 2000—or any number of previous Olympiads.

Indeed, the fact they did is perhaps prime evidence of their backward society.

Little of this will be of comfort to Team USA who, bar a certain Michael Phelps, has seen many of its medal dreams crushed by Oriental opponents.

With the world’s emerging superpower, and now the world’s emerging sporting power—talk has quickly begun within the USA about a "rivalry" with China.

Such talk is foolish.

Now, and in future years, the US will never be able to challenge China consistently—on the trading floors or in the sporting arenas. The size of the Asian country, both economically and geographically, is far beyond that of the US.

As such, creating a ‘”them or us” attitude would be foolish in the extreme. Instead, the US should be embracing China.

Just because you don’t understand something, doesn’t mean you should dislike it—and the West certainly doesn’t understand China. The West seems to have many misguided preconceptions about the nature of their "opponents."

In hosting the Olympics, China is not attempting to show its dominance over the world, as many may think. It is not deliberately trying to threaten the existing status quo.

Similarly, its suppression of the Tibetans and other ethnic minorities, its supplying of Sudan with weapons to commit war crimes, and the countless other abhorrent deeds it commits are not deliberately done to antagonise or oppose the West, as many may believe.

On the contrary, all such actions are done for a billion better reasons—to satisfy its own inhabitants.

Politics, throughout the globe, is a simple game—it is all about staying in power. In America, this is achieved by winning elections and keeping the voters happy.

The same principle applies in China. A communist state by nature, the Politburo (where the real power lies) is only too aware that it will not survive without the approval (or at least, grudging submission) of its people—it is rather hard to repel an angry revolt of over a billion people.

Without elections, this is the only thing they must avoid to preserve their power.

It must be remembered that, in 1949 when the Chinese Communist Party took control of China, they did so by defeating the previous rulers in a civil war—the party knows only too well how revolution works.

Fear of suffering a similar fate is what drives the antiquated, misguided leadership of this massive country.

Within mainland China, forceful control of Tibet is a popular policy. Strong control of domestic borders keeps the workers content. Thus, it happens.

While few Chinese citizens care for the situation in Darfur, the way it is portrayed to them by the (censored) media leads them to believe that their China is being represented as a strong, dominant player in the international community.

Hosting the Olympics only reinforces this belief. And to come on top of the medal table? Well, that can only mean that China—and its leadership—must be doing something right.

With everything seemingly going so well, what is there to oppose?

Sound familiar to many Americans? It should, as a similar principle has long guided their country. Sporting dominance only boosts national morale—just as being usurped is only draining it.

The surge in nationalism by "opposing" China is one way of trying to regain what has been lost.

But the real irony is this—China desperately wants to be like the USA. It looks up to the Western country as the example to follow. This fundamental similarity in political outlook is one example, but there are many more.

Look at their reverence for Michael Phelps, for US culture, or anything US-related. The country, in many respects, models itself on the US.

As a blueprint for political, economic, and social growth, it is not a bad example to follow. Yet, instead of being flattered by the adulation, the US seems to resent it.

Increased association with the US would be domestically popular in China. As such, the Politburo would not resist its course of action.

Yet President Bush, rather than congratulating the undoubtedly astonishing achievements of the Beijing Olympic Committee, has taken the opportunity of his visit to China to criticise their human rights record.

Such events, where America attempts to embarrass the Chinese leadership, is exactly what the Politburo fears—it is exactly why they are reticent to link up with the international community.

Additionally, did the US ever listen to its international critics when it was the dominant player in world affairs?

No, of course not. What case is there to answer, when no one else can match your success?

In this instance, then, disparagement and condemnation is not the way to encourage reforms. Such actions will fall on deaf ears—the Chinese leadership will only hear the cheers of delight from their people as their domestic heroes claim gold medals.

But nevertheless, these Olympics do offer the chance for China to change. The opportunity is not lost for them to be welcomed into the international community.

Why? Because they are still not aware of their own strength. The people only believe what they are told, while the power holders are trapped by the outdated thinking of their party rhetoric.

Whisper it quietly, but China is only vaguely aware of the immense potential it has.

If the US can open a friendly dialogue with China, the opportunity is there to lead them towards democracy and international diplomacy—what hosting the Games was intended to do.

But the other option—distrust and disrespect of new opponents—will only lead to isolating China. And, in this scenario, China will quickly find out it doesn’t need the validation of anyone, least of all America, to be the world’s dominant nation. 

Even now, if push came to shove, you would be surprised how many of the 204 competing Olympic nations would side with China ahead of the US in any international dispute.

That would be something worth worrying about.

So, this talk of a rivalry? Of another Cold War?

Now is not the time. The door is open for respect, admiration and co-operation to lead China towards political and social modernity. The West really needs to take the chance.

Then people would really start talking about the Olympic “legacy.”