With only a few days to go until the opening of the Beijing Olympics, China has blinked. Just last week after much posturing and a back flip worthy of a 10 from the International Olympic Committee, China agreed to committee requests to free up media restrictions and allow (slightly) more open access to the internet. The power of the Olympics but will it last?
In awarding the Olympics to China in 2001, the committee expressed its hope that the Games would have a positive, lasting effect on Chinese society. And the Chinese Government played along. In its bid to host the games, it talked up the possibility of the Olympics promoting not only the economy but enhancing social structures, including human rights. Until last week it was keen to talk the talk but not yet ready to walk the talk. Now the question is: for how long?
There are no firm standards for judging whether a country should host the Olympics, but there are general expectations arising from the community and supported by the committee and governments that the Olympics should be hosted by nations that are positive role models. The concepts of human rights and the Olympics are not synonymous but are surely linked.
Traditionally, the Games have employed symbols like flames, doves and other images that represent the spirit of coming together to work for human rights in a move towards the establishment of a peaceful world concerned with the preservation of human dignity. The Olympic Charter itself expressly states that ''the goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.'' This is not so different from the goals set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to promote the inherent dignity and rights of all. Clearly, modern history has inopportunely juxtaposed reality with these ideals and the two most prominent examples of where the Olympic Games inconveniently clashed with human rights ideals were Berlin in 1936 and Moscow in 1980. It seemed China in 2008 was to be another. Recent ''revelations'' exposing the iron fist with which the Chinese Government interprets the right to freedom of speech and expression, in particular its stringent censorship of the internet, seemed to shock no-one other than some prominent members of the Olympics committee. Typically, article postings, blogs and websites considered ''sensitive'' are blocked, deleted or closed down by the Chinese Government.
However, it is not just the Government which is acting as an internet censor. Companies such as Yahoo, Google and Microsoft have also taken to self-censoring the content on their websites in China and view it as the cost of doing business there. Google offers a more restricted website in China (google.cn) than that offered elsewhere around the world.
Attempts to search for terms such as ''human rights'' or ''Tiananmen Square'' are fruitless inside China. Access to information and freedom of speech has long been restricted and until last week, despite promises to the contrary, awarding the Olympics to Beijing had done nothing to change these practices.
Suddenly last week, the Chinese Government capitulated to global pressure and agreed to unblock some sites which had traditionally been closed and allow (at least for the next few weeks) access to some sites which have traditionally been unavailable in China.
However, the issue is broader than internet restrictions. Human rights in China are affected in many ways by Government practices, and groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch argue that human rights abuses have actually increased in the months leading up to the Olympics. These groups have been highlighting all year the increased detention of rights activists within China in a bid to ''clean up'' the country's image and stifle dissent in the lead up to the Olympics. The countdown to the Games, it was hoped, would signal a change in attitude of the Chinese Government and an opening up of society. It would also somehow magically lead to the development of a more democratic, transparent and harmonious relationship between the Government and its people. Last week, the Government took a significant step forward, but it has a long way to go.
The political sideshow that accompanies the Games can be used as force for good if governments and the Olympics committee develop the backbone and political will to do so. Whether the committee has suddenly developed such spirit or was simply shamed into doing so is not so clear in this case. Yes, there are those who will continue to argue that the Games should be depoliticised and immune from such pressure. But they never have been, nor will be.
The Olympic Games cannot magically transform an authoritarian society into a more democratic one, but the intense attention of the world's media focused on one country for a short period can be a powerful tool for change. Whether the Olympics has a lasting and positive effect on China will depend in part on whether internet restrictions are lifted temporarily for the global media or removed long term to benefit the Chinese people. Are the traditional goals of Olympism more than just a pipe dream? We will need to wait and see.
Justine Nolan is deputy director of the Australian Human Rights Centre in the University of NSW's faculty of law.