Page 1 of
2 Why Big Business needs China
Games success By Benjamin A
Shobert
Only occasionally do the eyes of
the world fix on one event as they do on the
Olympic Games. The blessing and curse awaiting
those countries that play host to the Olympics
have much to do with the world's undivided
attention.
For countries with something to
hide, such as the Soviet Union during the 1980
Moscow Summer Olympics, the Games become about
more than sheer athleticism or the indomitable
human spirit exemplified in athletic endeavors.
The Games become about
projecting on to the world an
image of what the country wishes to be and how it
hopes to be seen - however disconnected such
aspirations may be from reality.
Next
year's Beijing Summer Olympics will be no
exception, and may become the standard-bearer for
countries that seek to use the Games to reshape
their global image.
China understandably
has much to be proud of: its immense economic
growth, an ascending middle class, a relatively
peaceful absorption of Hong Kong and Macau, as
well as increasing influence in pivotal
geopolitical issues. But China also struggles with
the aftermath of its totalitarian past, remnants
of which are best seen in the government's
inconsistent record on human rights. This month's
State Department Report on Human Rights made this
forcefully clear:
Although the [Chinese] constitution
asserts that "the state respects and preserves
human rights", the government's human-rights
record remained poor, and in certain areas
deteriorated. There were an increased number of
high-profile cases involving the monitoring,
harassment, detention, arrest, and imprisonment
of journalists, writers, activists, and defense
lawyers, many of whom were seeking to exercise
their rights under law. The government tightened
restrictions on freedom of speech and the press,
including stricter control and censorship of the
Internet.
China has come far in almost
every way imaginable - much further than many
pundits are willing to acknowledge - but the
status of Beijing's general jurisprudence, its at
best uneven and at worst heavy-handed record of
suppressing dissent, and an intrusive position by
the state into private affairs ranging from
religious affiliation to reproductive choice have
all combined to make Beijing realize it has much
to lose if the 2008 Olympics are improperly
managed.
The upside potential of a
well-orchestrated Olympics is obvious, but the
downside risk of protests and political strife
could seriously undermine the message Beijing
wishes to send about its foray into the 21st
century as an enlightened power.
Sponsor reputations at
stake Beijing is not the only stakeholder
in the Olympics with much to lose if the Games do
not go off uneventfully. Multinational sponsors,
as well as others who are more generally involved
in the Chinese economy, could see a backlash
against their presence in and reliance on China if
disruptions occur. Witness the aftermath of
protests at the World Bank/International Monetary
Fund meetings as a small portent of what could
happen if the much murkier aspects of China's
human-rights record and rule of law lurch into the
spotlight.
Demonstrations about working
conditions and workers' rights will not be new,
and consequently are likely to suffer from the
unfortunate acceptance by most Americans due to
economic necessity. However, a spotlight on
questions of personal freedom in China, concepts
Americans draw from within the lexicon of their
citizenship, holds the potential to be much more
upsetting.
It is not outside the realm of
possibility to see US public opinion turn
increasingly sour on China if political dissent is
militantly stifled during the Olympics. In such a
case, the repercussions would evidence themselves
not only through increasingly brittle political
exchanges, but the cold shoulder of consumers
toward companies they believe empower an unjust
Chinese system.
Multinationals can weather
many sorts of storms, and appear to be primarily
anticipating stormy skies over the question of how
they treat their workers. Anticipating this, most
are working in advance of the Games to establish
standards and policies that will at a minimum
provide them with plausible deniability of China's
darker practices, and yet hold the potential to
enact meaningful change.
General Electric
(GE), one of 11 top sponsors, had by late last
year already received more than US$160 million in
Olympics-related contracts. But the company's
general impact on the Olympics goes beyond venue
preparation; the role of its National Broadcasting
Co, and NBC's coverage of the Olympics itself,
combine to put GE in a uniquely influential
position.
As a result, no company may more
perfectly reflect the paradox of being in a
relationship with China. On one hand, GE
understands its responsibility to have
expectations of its business partners, countries
included. On the other, GE's influence is limited
to exercising its soft power; its ability to
impact change on questions outside of labor rights
is marginal.
GE's own corporate policies
reflect this tension: "GE conducts a regular
review of the human-rights situation in countries
with a focus on minimizing commercial and
reputational risks. GE considers a number of
factors, including whether a country ... has a
poor human-rights record, as reported by the [US]
State Department."
But if the human-rights
story during the Olympics has less to do with
labor equality and more to do with censorship,
religious
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
