Citius, Altius, Fortius
(Faster, Higher, Stronger)

The laconic phrase that sums up the Olympic ideal, while giving a command to participant athletes to reach their utmost potential, also affirms that winning is not everything, for the important thing is to take part.[1]

The Olympic ideal is not just every athlete’s code. It’s every human being’s credo -- that in everything that we do, we should aim to get better.

With the controversy involving the Olympics organizers themselves (International Olympic Committee [IOC] and the Beijing Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games [BOCOG]), this creed is again put to the test.


Faster Mode of Winning the Bid?

Maybe it’s the perfect-symmetry principle of Chinese Astrology that motivated China to bid with the IOC (against rival candidates Toronto, Paris, Istanbul, and Osaka) to host the 2008 summer Olympics. Whatever it is, in April 2001, the Chinese government made a commitment and pledge to the IOC.

In a Report of an IOC Commission, “it was confirmed to the Commission that there will be no restrictions in media reporting and movement of journalists up to and including the Olympic Games.”[2] In July of the same year, guided by that report, IOC members voted in favor of Beijing. Until earlier this year IOC press chief Kevan Gosper said the issue of unrestricted Internet access during Games time had been discussed, and he voiced confidence that China would comply.[3]

But just ten days before the opening ceremony, the once confident Gosper said that IOC had reached an agreement with the Chinese government that some sensitive sites would be blocked on the basis they were not considered “Games related”, to wit: those pertaining to human rights, religious freedom, Tibet and the Falun Gong mediation sect, as well as some foreign news sites. The thing is, many news and rights-related sites carry information on social disruption and security clampdowns directly linked to China’s preparations for the Olympics.[4]


Higher Forms of Breach

On the surface, the non-compliance of the Chinese government with its original commitment to make no restrictions as to media reporting may appear to be a simple form of breach. But the international press, as well as the Human Rights Watch, thinks otherwise. To them, not only did IOC (and BOCOG) infringe the Olympic Charter,[5] it actually helped perpetuate censorship, one of the most common abuses in China today.[6]

Human Rights activists look beyond a simple type of breach (which would actually qualify as a breach due to intrinsic fraud[7] under Philippine Civil Law). As Aidan White (General Secretary of the International Federation of Journalist) puts it, “This really does go against the promises that were made by all sides – in both Beijing and by the IOC – that journalists would not be subject to censorship,” said.

International media treats China’s policy as a form of media censorship, which violates internationally established human rights to freedom of access and of expression, which are embodied in a number of international declarations and conventions, some of which are the following:

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights recognizes the “Individual freedom of belief, speech, association, freedom of press, right to hold assembly.”

United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Economic and Social Council declares that “[T]he right to seek and receive information is not simply a converse of the right to freedom of opinion and expression but a freedom on its own…. [T]he right to access to information held by the Government must be the rule rather than the exception. Furthermore, there must be a general right of access to certain types of information related to what may be called "State activity," for example, meetings and decision-making forums should be open to the public wherever possible.”[8]


Stronger Reasons for Clamor

It seems that the IOC has never been on the forefront of as much criticisms in the past as it is now. Could have been because they “stepped on” the rights of the most assertive and opinionated class of people – the journalists – who, despite censorship, find ways to get their message across.

One thing is definite though. With the accession of the IOC to China’s policy on “sufficient access”, the end to these debates is mooted. But it deserves no scant interest nonetheless.

On the one hand, past doubts as to the possibility of China’s turning back on its own word, proved to be true. On the other hand, IOC closed a deal with China, in the aim of promoting an anti-political and a purely sporting event. One claims that its rights, internationally recognized at that, to have been violated, while the other asserts that its own right to an anti-political and criticism-free hosting would have been violated if the other would be allowed to access everything. While one party clamors for "free" access, the other asserts that "sufficient" access is all we could give.

So, which is which? Whose side carries more weight?


Citius, Altius, Fortius?

The best gauge is the Olympic ideal, the often disregarded core of the matter. It would definitely give more weight to that which brings everyone closer to it.


As has been stated, the aim is to reach everyone’s utmost potential; to take part more than to win; to get better.

With the availability and expansion of media technology, its proper utilization, and the commitment to keep it available, the internationally recognized right to freedom of access and of expression (or "to take part") should become better. Any attempt back out on a commitment, which will eventually curtail already-guaranteed freedoms in the guise of “sufficient access” will, in no way, make things reach their utmost potential.

For who can claim that he can exact what is sufficient from that which is free? And that what it claims to be sufficient is that which will make things better?

There’s definitely something wrong in prior restraint. And that is what China and the IOC are guilty of.



(long paper due 08 August 2008, 4pm // 1,025 words)
-----------------------------------------------------------

[1] One World, One Dream: The Official Website of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games, August 8-24 2008 (http://en.beijing2008.cn/spirit/symbols/motto/index.shtml)
[2] Excerpt from a 2001 IOC report evaluating Beijing's host city bid. (Source: IOC)
[3] Internet sites still blocked for Olympic reporters, 30th July 2008, 10:03 GMT (http://www.radio86.co.uk/china-insight/news-today/7295/internet-sites-still-blocked-for-olympic-reporters)
[4] ibid
[5] Chapter 5.49 of the Olympic Charter provides that “(t)he IOC takes all necessary steps in order to ensure the fullest coverage by the different media and the widest possible audience in the world for the Olympic Games.”
[6] Sophie Richardson, Asia Advocacy Director of Human Rights Watch
[7] PAWI vs. Fasgi (2000): “In fine, intrinsic fraud, that is, fraud which goes to the very existence of the cause of action - such as fraud in obtaining the consent to a contract.”
[8] , “Promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression Report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Abid Hussain, submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1997/26,” E/CN.4/1998/40, January 28,1998 paras. 11 & 12. The Commission of Human Rights endorsed the special rapporteur’s statement, Commission on Human Rights resolution 1998/42, April 17, 1998.