First of all, what does it mean for China to be “post-Olympic?” My family arrived in Beijing in the summer of 2001; right around the time that Beijing won its Olympic bid. Starting then, there was a gradual building towards August 2008. Each time I returned to Beijing, new civic projects had been completed, more information about the Games had been publicized, and more posters, buildings and stores bore BOCOG’s Olympic branding. Everyone and everything in the city has been so focused on the Games for the last seven years that it became difficult to see past August 2008.

Then, while riding in a taxi yesterday, a radio personality gave the date as “the third day after the Olympics.” Post-Olympic time has officially begun. It seems that the calendar has been reset and Chinese time is now counted anno post ludus, much as the counting of time began again under new Chinese dynasties, or during the French Revolution. Now all of the energy, innovation and—perhaps most importantly—capital that was devoted to and generated by the Olympics will either be let loose or refocused on China’s next goal.

The remains of a neglected aquatic sports facility next to the Worker's Stadium

The Chinese government spent an estimated $2 billion on Olympic venues and infrastructure, but that is not counting the billions invested into making post-Olympic Beijing a world-class city. For instance, the new China Central Television (CCTV) tower, designed by Koolhaus and costing $780 million, is effectively a trophy celebrating Beijing’s recent development. But what use does Beijing have for the Olympic infrastructure now? Apartments in the Olympic Village, which housed 16,000 athletes and press, are being sold off at up to $1 million each—which will potentially cause the bottom to fall out of Beijing’s luxury housing market.

The Olympic Media Village apartments, now for sale.

Of course, China is not without upcoming major events into which it can pour its resources. To name just two, Hong Kong will host the 2009 East Asian Games and in 2010, the World Expo will be in Shanghai. Perhaps these events will keep China looking forward.

What about China’s post-Olympic prospects with regards to pollution? As I noted in a previous post, the air in Beijing was remarkably cleaner during the Games than normal, but the restrictions put in place to clean the air will not remain in force for long. According to Chinese radio, the license-plate-based limitations on cars ends August 28; the temporary closure of factories and construction will end shortly after the Paralympic Games in September. No doubt the air will quickly revert to its pre-Games poor quality.

And with regards to press and media freedoms—well, it is unclear whether China made any “progress” on these fronts during the Games. There have been lots of reports on this subject, but I have a personal anecdote: my family’s television receives CNN via satellite. We rarely have any problems with the channel, but it recently froze on a single frame for upwards of four hours. It just so happens that the frame it froze on was the announcement that the IOC is investigating the supposedly underage Chinese gymnasts. I understand that this only happened to my family’s TV, but I cannot explain why or how. Although I am not sure this was an act of censorship, I am suspect.

Picture of my frozen TV screen

If I sound pessimistic, it is because I am. In the West, the 2008 Olympics were touted as having the potential to stimulate further reform and opening in China, but despite the radical shift that post-Olympic time might suggest, I think Beijing is headed for more of the same: rapid and unstable economic growth, gradual reforms with an overall trend towards free markets and property rights, and continued control of individuals for the good of the collective. Not all bad, by any means, but a good bit short of what the West dared hope.

Then again, it is too soon to tell.

A sign outside a public park exhorting people to: "Welcome olympic games with joyfulness and construct a harmonious society." Signs like this were pervasive.

A public sculpture of the Olympic mascots, the "fu-wa" or "Friendlies"

The American men's water polo team playing Hungary for the gold, but taking silver

The American women after beating Brazil 1-0 for the gold in soccer

The Chinese team did it—they won the gold medal count. The final count has China with 51 golds out of a possible 302, USA 36, Russia 23, Great Britain 19 and Germany 16 (click here for a table of the medal results). Not only did China win the most gold medals in the 2008 Games, they won the most golds of any country since the Soviet Union won 55 in the 1988. The last time the USA won more than 51 golds, it was at the 1984 Los Angeles Games, which the Soviets boycotted. During the Olympics, the medal-count obsession became pervasive in Beijing and was a constant cause for speculation.

American women's soccer team on the top of the podium in Worker's Stadium

Before the Games, there were many hypotheses about the medal outcome. The accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers predicted that China would win 88 total (not just gold) medals to America’s 87. That the firm, which also provides auditing services to the Games, would pick the auspicious number eight for their clients hardly seems coincidental. Later Daniel Johnson and Ayfer Ali of Colorado College calculated that China would win 44 golds to the USA’s 33. The New York Times reported that large bets could be placed at bookies and online on the medal count outcome. The odds were on China before the Games began.

China’s goal was to top the USA in the gold medal count. The USA has won the gold medal count since Atlanta in 1996. To overcome the perennial champions, the Chinese launched “Project 119” in July 2001. The idea of “Project 119” was to build China’s athletic programs in traditionally weak areas, such as track-and-field and swimming. The name comes from the 119 (by 2008, the number had risen to 122) gold medals in those disciplines China identified as events they could, but do not usually, win. Ultimately, they won fewer than half of Project 119’s events, but the performance was sufficient to dominate the gold medal tally.

What was the success of Project 119? China lost some old faithfuls, but had some unexpected victories. The major upsets were: Chinese shooter Du Li failed to medal in the 10m air rifle, the first event of the Games; Americans Nastia Liukin and Shawn Johnson finished one and two ahead of China’s Yang Yilin in the women’s gymnastics individual all-around; hurdler Liu Xiang withdrew from the men’s 110m event; and Zhou Luxin lost to Australian Matthew Mitcham in the men’s diving 10m platform—the only diving event the Chinese did not win.

But there were more surprise wins than losses, including: Liu Zige broke the world record for China in the women’s 200m butterfly swim; the women’s four took gold in rowing; Chinese women won four of seven weightlifting classes; and shooter Du Li redeemed herself with a gold in the women’s 50m rifle three positions event. And the list goes on.

China delivered golds as promised, but only golds. China is one of only two countries with over 10 total medals to have over 50% of those medals be gold. The other is Jamica, with 6 golds out of 11 total. China won 100 medals to America’s 110. But the USA is the only country that places importance on the total medal count. In China, only gold matters. The official Beijing Olympic site ranks countries by number of gold medals, whereas the New York Times ranks countries by total medals. Chinese TV played and replayed medal ceremonies with Chinese champions—but did not even once air those ceremonies in which Chinese athletes did not win gold (to my knowledge, and I watched a lot of coverage).

We put a great deal of pressure on athletes to win gold. I say “we” because, if we are honest with ourselves, Americans place as much importance on the gold medal as do the Chinese. Both Americans and Chinese use the Olympic medal count (however you count) as a display of national power in which athletes become proxy soldiers in a nonviolent conflict. In this fantasy, victory on the podium becomes a validation of one political and economic system over another—this was even truer when the Soviets competed. Following from this, a silver medal means that there is another national system that is ever so slightly better. As a taxi driver put it, “A gold medal is for winners, the silver medal is for not-winners.”

Michael Phelps takes gold - but I don't remember which number this was

Fortunately, since the USA won more total medals and China won more golds, both countries can rest happy.

Please continue to visit the blog over the next few days.

A specter is haunting Beijing—air pollution. Beijing’s air pollution, some of the worst in the world, was a concern from the beginning for Olympic organizers. The Chinese government enacted initiatives in preparation for the Games, but skeptical media outlets were quick to disparage China’s efforts. In the days on either side of August 8, the New York Times and the South China Morning Post published articles about China’s failure to reduce pollution. The decision of Ethiopian marathoner Haile Gebrselassie to not run in the Games was held up as proof of the China’s shortcomings. But Beijing saw more clean days these last two weeks than anyone can remember, and no one is reporting this success.

Beijing’s new tallest building, a 78-story tower a kilometer down the street from my home, serves as my pollution barometer. If I can clearly see the building when I ride my bike out in the morning, the air is clear. There have been days in which the building is completely obscured by smog. Based on this rough metric, the first few days of the Olympics remained polluted, but then the air cleared. The last several days have been some of the most beautiful days I have ever seen in the city.

My 78-story Skidmore, Owings & Merrill-designed pollution barometer

The Chinese government uses a rather more sophisticated method of determining air quality. Based on measurements of the solid particulates in the air, the day is awarded a score between 1 and 500, 500 being the worst. Anything over 100 is considered dangerous—in July, the rating was consistently above 150. There have been days scored at close to 500, which usually result in highway closure due to low visibility. On the other hand, Beijing meteorologists consider any day with a score of fewer than 100 a “blue sky day,” regardless of cloud-cover. During the Games, the air has scored consistently below 100. It is obvious that progress has been made by hook or by crook.

The reduction in particulates is apparently the result of several costly initiatives:

1. China tried unproven cloud-seeding techniques. Pellets of silver iodide and dry ice are shot into the air to either create clouds in order to precipitate rain or to disperse clouds. (It is unclear what is the more desired effect. I have read articles citing “authorities” that argue each way);
2. Half the cars (a estimated 3 million) were also removed from Beijing’s roads as a result of restrictions placed on license plates. Cars with even-numbered plates can drive on even numbered days and the same for cars with odd-numbered plates. Unfortunately, it seems that the difference has been made up in taxis;
3. All non-Olympic-related construction in the city was put on hold starting July 20 to reduce the dust caused by construction; and
4. All factories in Beijing and the surrounding provinces were shut down in the months preceding the Games.

Still, there are detractors. Western environmentalists have argued that counting only particulates overlooks other harmful airborne pollutants. “Blue sky days” on China’s scale are considered dangerous in the USA. But when I write above that Beijing has had “more clean days… than anyone can remember,” I do not mean a particulate score of fewer than 100. The sky has been actually blue. Nor have any athletes suffered during the endurance events—I have yet to see an athlete even wearing a filter mask, which were distributed to many upon arrival.

But one can go overboard in praising the Chinese cleanup. Jacques Rogge, President of the International Olympic Committee, told the press during one grey and disgusting day that the soupy air was not smog, but fog. Beijing sits on the edge of a desert at sea level. Even in the unlikely event that there would be fog, it would burn off under the hot sun. One must remain realistic about the situation.

China’s magical cleanup, if it is as successful as Rogge believes, suggests that China can control its pollution levels. The supposed ability to sanitize Beijing’s air means that China can continue to pollute freely for now because they can always clean up later. This is dangerous thinking. The “real” Beijing is not actually cleaner: when the cars return, the factors are online again, and no one is seeding clouds, Beijing will return to being one of the most polluted cities in the world. The Olympic clean air is only temporary.

The Australian basketball team is beating Russia by 20 points at the start of the 4^th quarter. In the upper reaches of the stands, the crowd is unified in the Chinese chant: “Eluosi, jiayou!” (Literally, “Russia, add gas!”) The call to “add gas” is the most standard of cheers here. The cheering Chinese are lead by a diminutive man who is turning red in the face as he madly waves his Russian flag. The pockets of Russians in the stands have their own cheer (chanting the Russian word for the motherland: “Ro-see-ya! Ro-see-ya!”), but evidently the Chinese cheerleaders feel the Russian fans need a helping hand. Jiayou, Russia, add gas!

American fans with Chinese backup at the US-Japan women's soccer game.

In keeping with the Olympic spirit, Chinese organizers are guaranteeing that every venue is electric and every team has fans. You can be guaranteed that when a Chinese team or athlete is involved, the stands are alive with red flags, stickers, face paint and noisemakers. The presence of a Chinese star, like diver Guo Jingjing or gymnast Yang Wei, makes domestic fans positively apoplectic with joy. But even at China’s weaker events, such as water polo, spectators show up in throngs and if they cannot cheer for their own team, they are more than happy to cheer for someone else’s.

Part of this is stage-managed. Because the Beijing Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games (BOCOG) released only one-fifth of the total tickets to other countries (the host country normally releases one half), many teams have had relatively fewer fans. When early on the TV cameras showed some quiet, empty stands despite “sold out venues,” BOCOG organized local Chinese into cheering squads. Each squad is lead by a more experienced cheerleader, someone to keep time and teach new chants. The worse a team is losing, the more the squad is encouraged to yell—just to ensure every team feels welcome.

At many venues, large LCD displays give directions to fans. When the Jamaican women swept the 100m dash, the screen in the Bird’s Nest read “Amazing!”—lest that was in doubt. For less spectacular finishes, the screen might read simply “Good job,” or exhort spectators to “Cheer!” and “Give Round of Applause!” [sic] The word choice indicates to the crowd the quality of the performance they just witnessed. Once, after I saw Angola dramatically lose a basketball game, we were sympathetically told to “Cheer for Angola!” Spectators are surprisingly obliging to these transparent efforts on the part of officials to “add gas” to the home crowd.

The Chinese have also discovered a piece of old Western wisdom: cheerleaders “add gas” to any crowd. People who have been familiar with China for more than a few years are in shock. The Beach Girls at the beach volleyball venue and The Beijing Dream Dancers at the basketball stadium have created the most fuss because of their scanty outfits and provocative dancing. They have pompoms, miniskirts and synchronized dance steps. The Beach Girls teach spectators The Wave between sets and the Dream Dancers were trained by the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders. While the Dream Dancers are not yet as experienced or as blonde, they compensate with enthusiasm and skin.

Cheerleaders at soccer venue and the red "fuwa", one of the 5 mascots of the Games.

But not everything is stage-managed—a large part of the energy and goodwill flowing from local spectators is natural. Chinese people are genuinely thrilled to play host to the world’s athletes and fans. As long as China is not playing, ordinary Chinese spectators are also anxious to learn cheers in other languages and to cheer for foreign athletes. I was recently in a mixed crowd of Hungarian and Chinese spectators at a water polo game in which everyone was chanting Hungarian cheers in unison. Then the Chinese taught everyone how to cheer in Chinese: Xiongyali jiayou! Add gas Hungary! It was as close to experiencing “One World, One Dream” as I have been in these Games so far.

The International Olympic Committee awarded the Summer Games to Beijing in 2001 under the conditions that the government reduce pollution and increase protections of human rights. Beijing “promised” the International Olympic Committee (IOC) blue skies and press freedom. Many critics accuse Beijing of breaking their Olympic promises. But as the Beijing Games continue in spite of criticism, a future host country is committing violence far worse than censorship. Olympic promises are easy to break—is the IOC going to learn this lesson before the 2014 Games in Russia?

The 2014 Winter Olympics are going to be in the Crimean resort town of Sochi. Sochi is Putin’s favorite ski resort. He became personally invested in the bid, traveling to Guatemala City in July 2007 to pressure the IOCinto voting for Sochi over Pyeongchang, Korea, 51 to 47. This is the first time Russia will host the Winter Games. 

The Sochi bid victory was awarded on some explicit and implicit conditions. Besides “guaranteeing” snow and “no traffic jams,” Putin also personally promised the IOC that increased tourism would not damage the nature preserves in the area. More significantly, the Sochi bid chief Dmitry Chernyshenko called the prospective Games “a key moment in Russian history” because “the Games will help Russia transition as a young democracy.” Russia promised democratization as a selling point in its Olympic bid.

The idea of the Olympics serving as a democratizing power originated with the 1988 Seoul Games, which aided South Korea’s transition out of autocracy. This rationale was applied to China with Beijing’s bid. A 2001 Op-Ed piece from the New York Times argued, “The United States and the I.O.C. should do what they can to turn the 2008 Summer Games into a force for constructive change in China. The long-term interests of advancing democracy and freedom there can be served.”

But it is unclear whether the Olympic Games have in fact influenced China’s political development.

When, in early August, reporters discovered China continued to block certain websites in violation of its promise to grant “unfettered” Internet access, the IOC negotiated with the government but issued no public condemnation. Ultimately, the IOC settled for half-measures, removing the block from Amnesty International site but keeping politically sensitive pages off-limits. Settling on issues like freedom of information does not encourage democratization but rather affirms that stubborn host countries can get their way.

Jacques Rogge, president of the IOC, has said that he is engaging the Chinese government in “invisible diplomacy” over human rights issues. He believes that outspoken criticism will not work and that respectful engagement is more effective. Unfortunately, because it is “invisible,” the effectiveness of Rogge’s efforts is impossible to judge. He claims that he is making progress, but no one outside of the opaque Chinese government can measure his success. It is likely that this late in the game he is winning only lip service.

The lack of backbone the IOC has demonstrated in the case of China reveals that the Olympics are not necessarily a force for “constructive change.” Nor do host countries necessarily honor their promises. Fortunately for the IOC, because of China’s substantial progress on fronts like human rights and global cooperation, the stakes in 2008 are insignficant compared to those in 2014.

Sochi is 15 miles away from the border between Russia and Georgia, which the Russians violated only a week ago with tanks. Russian “peace-keeping forces” killed thousands. Last month, the CEO of British Petroleum’s Russian joint venture BP-TNK was unlawfully chased out of the country in a move to push out Western partners. In 2006, journalist Anna Politkovskaya was shot dead in an elevator. The prime suspect: Putin’s thugs. The motive: Politkovskaya’s criticism of Putin’s regime. These are just some of Russia’s more sensational violations of human rights and international law, but they are by no means isolated abuses.

As long as the IOC fails to enforce promises made by host countries, awarding the Games to Sochi signals international acceptance of Russia instead of public disapproval of its shortcomings. Russia is able to say whatever it likes during its bidding process in full knowledge that it will never uphold its promises. The Olympics then become a stamp of approval on a pariah regime.

Is it realistic to advocate withdrawing from Sochi? That would be an incredible insult and might incite further retribution from Russia. But the longer the IOC does not criticize Russia—and perhaps withdraw—the more difficult it will be to apply pressure in the future. The IOC’s alternatives will be increasingly limited, a lesson the Committee should learn from Beijing.

August 8, 2008 has finally come. This auspicious date (eight is a lucky number in China) was chosen seven years ago to be the official opening day for the Beijing Olympic Games. In fact, to maximize the good fortune, the opening ceremony began at 8:00pm.

Interior of the new embassy

“8-8-08” is also marked by the opening of the new U.S. Embassy in Beijing. At $434 million, it is the second most expensive building US State Department has constructed overseas, behind only the Baghdad embassy compound, in which all embassy personnel live. In order to “out-Chinese” the Chinese, the ceremony began promptly at 8:08am.

Ambassador Clark T. Randt (full disclosure: my dad) delivered the opening remarks, but quickly turned the podium over to former President George H.W. Bush. Father then passed of to son as the current President George Bush took the microphone. State Councilor and Deputy Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo concluded with his thoughts on the major developments in Sino-US relations since Washington recognized the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1972. Each also honored Dr. Henry Kissinger, who was in attendance with his family, for orchestrating Nixon’s historic meeting with Mao Zedong 36 years ago.

The younger Bush did not pull any punches in continuing his recent criticism of the Chinese government. In his words:

“We’ll continue to be candid about our mutual global responsibilities. We must work together to protect the environment and help people in the developing world; continue to be candid about our belief that all people should have the freedom to say what they think and worship as they choose. We strongly believe societies which allow the free expression of ideas tend to be the most prosperous and the most peaceful.”

While the timing of the embassy’s opening might suggest a close and harmonious relationship with China, Bush’s words demonstrate that the U.S. is not complacent about what we see as China’s shortcomings. For better or worse, China is unlikely to enjoy the apolitical Olympic Games for which it hoped. (Video of Bush speaking at the embassy: bush-speaking-at-embassy)

And of course, the Olympics were at the forefront of everyone’s thoughts. President Bush joked that he would have enjoyed the opportunity to compete in the new BMX events, but that Laura reminded him, “They don’t give any medals for last place.”

Entertainment for the event was provided by the Red Poppies, an all-female Chinese drum corps in black jackboots, and The Gatlin Brothers, a country trio from Odessa, TX., and favorites of the President. The Gatlin Brothers performed a patriotic new song entitled, “Americans, That’s Who.”

All told, August 8, 2008, and the Olympic period, began auspiciously and in good humor for Team USA.

My father speaking

A group of "community volunteers"

Beijing has unleashed her volunteers. At every street corner, pairs of old men and women wearing red-and-white collared shirts fan themselves to pass the time, dying for a stranger to approach them with a question. Also lining the streets are blue-and-white kiosks replete with bilingual signage and matching youths, eager to use their English. These Olympic volunteers are eager for visitors to put their service to the test—and to display their patriotism.

The South China Morning Post reported that 1.5 million Chinese citizens are volunteering for the Olympic Games. In total, 6.8 million sporting event tickets have been sold, meaning that even if each person had only a single ticket, there would be one volunteer for every 4.5 spectators. And since Beijing is only expecting half a million outsiders, volunteers will outnumber foreigners three to one. No wonder I have yet to see any of the volunteers actually doing anything.

Calling to mind a line sung by Lumiere, the candlestick in Beauty and the Beast—“Life is so unnerving / For a servant who’s not serving”—I grew curious about who these volunteers are and what motivates their volunteerism.

Mr. Zhang sat on a curb reading a newspaper opposite the Worker’s Stadium, site of the Olympic soccer games. He wore a red-and-white shirt marking him as a “community volunteer,” the lowest level in the three-tiered system. His duties are “to ensure safety and to assist people in the area to find what they need.” As he speaks no English, he is serving Chinese visitors to Beijing. Zhang is a wholesaler of domestic wines, but he took time off from his business to volunteer despite receiving no remuneration—not even an event ticket. When asked why, he said, “I had to!” I asked him if he meant he had somehow been conscripted. He grinned: “No, I had to because I am Chinese.”

Ms. Deng works in a blue-and-white kiosk. She is a “city volunteer” and thus a level above Mr. Zhang. Deng is a university student in Beijing, but like all local college students, she has the month off. Students who are not from Beijing and not volunteering have been asked to leave the city for the duration of the Games to reduce the population. Even when I ask her questions in Chinese, Deng responds in English, telling me that she is here to welcome foreign visitors. As I engage her further, she tells me that her favorite Olympians are basketball star Yao Ming and gold-medal hopeful hurdler Liu Xiang. A fellow, almost identical volunteer cuts in upon hearing this. “Good for you!” she says. And to me: “China’s going to win.”

The most prestigious volunteer position is that of the “venue volunteer.” I have yet to meet one, but I imagine that they are even more colorful and patriotic.

Two bike-mounted "city volunteers"

Personal experience in taxis, language classes, and other sporting events has taught me that intense patriotism is nothing new in Beijing. But for an event the Chinese government insists is not about politics, the volunteer army is certainly a convincing medium for the display of civic and national pride, even if inadvertently.

Moreover, the nationalism of the volunteers does not seem forced. Their enthusiasm makes their patriotism palatable. As visitors are overwhelmed by volunteerism, foreigners will be hard-pressed to believe that the Chinese government is unpopular or unduly repressive. Such a regime would be inconsistent with Zhang’s gusto and Deng’s natural smile.

Whether or not the show is genuine, the Chinese have taken Lumiere’s wisdom to heart: “No one’s gloomy or complaining / While the flatware’s entertaining.”

The expatriate community in Beijing thrives on gossip. Even at a local level, China’s decision-making processes remain closed to the public, and especially to foreigners, or laowai (“old outsiders”). As a result, the rumor mill is often the best source of information about things both extraordinary and mundane. In preparation for the Olympic Games and international scrutiny, Beijing has undergone many major and minor changes in infrastructure, security, appearance, and regulations. The gossip has increased proportionally in volume and drama, so some of the best rumors come after the jump.

1. As of July 20, new traffic regulations went into effect to curb pollution and traffic. The new rules allow only private cars with license plates ending in even numbers to drive on even-numbered days, likewise limiting cars with odd-numbered plates to odd days. But neither of these restrictions applies to vehicles with diplomatic plates, which is the suspected motive for the rumored spike in diplomatic license-plate theft. This threat is being taken so seriously that the US Embassy here has offered to “work with any interested employee to better secure their license plates.”

2. The title of a recent article in the Financial Times dubbed these Olympics the “No-Fun Games.” Indeed, there is a fear in Beijing that many of the city’s best watering holes will be closed for the Olympic or raise prices exponentially. Even if bars remain open and affordable, new government-imposed restrictions promise to put a damper on the nightlife. According to the Washington Post, the restrictions include: “no tables on the sidewalk, no excess partying, no displays of affection, and no service for foreigners with prostitutes.” Sounds like an office party.

3. There are also rumors that live music venues will be temporarily shut down. The Beijing Cultural Bureau released a statement that “all concerts during the Olympics would need government approval.” Since China’s new rock, hip-hop, and experimental music scenes are still largely underground, no one can say for sure what type of concerts will be approved. In general, the government associates rock and hip-hop with youth degeneracy and social instability, two things to be avoided at all costs.

4. Shockingly, the South China Morning Post (SCMP), the major Hong Kong daily paper, reported on July 18 that bar- and club-owners in Beijing have been ordered by police to “sign pledges agreeing not to let black people enter their premises” (full article at shanghaiexpat.com). According to the proprietors interviewed by the SCMP, the racist restriction is part of an effort to “stamp out drug dealing… ahead of the Games.” A week later, the SCMP reported that the Chinese Foreign Ministry denounced the reports as being “without foundation.” The government is now in a bind: it cannot confirm these reports, but denying it makes the ever-skeptical laowai population only more convinced that the government is implementing such a policy. That being said, the African-American members of the US Olympic Committee already here in Beijing told me that they have not experienced any problems.

5. And to wrap up, here’s an equally shocking story. “Maggie’s” is a famous institution in Beijing, even if it is more often called by its sobriquet: “Maggie’s Mongolian Whorehouse.” Besides being a bar and club, Maggie’s has long been arguably Beijing’s most famous brothel. Some weeks ago, all of Beijing’s brothels were closed for inspection—but Maggie’s has not reopened. Although I have heard a number of versions of the same theory, I was told by one woman whose “friend was in Maggie’s the night it was closed” that the police found the mutilated bodies of a couple working girls in one of the back rooms. To my knowledge, Beijing’s laowai never previously suspected this sort of thing might happen at Maggie’s.

With all eyes on Beijing, the Chinese government is trying hard to clear all the skeletons out of its closet, but the utter lack of government transparency encourages speculation. The rumor mill compensates for the lack of trustworthy news from conventional sources.

But don’t despair—I will continue to do my best to provide a reliable account of the 2008 Olympics, including the juicy gossip.

A lot of fuss has been made over which heads-of-state are attending the Beijing Olympic Games and which are not. Many people are equating their attendance with an endorsement of the Chinese government. In light of the March conflict in Tibet and reports of activists being jailed in the run-up to the Games, there have been calls for state leaders to boycott. Others feel that Olympic boycotts will not effect political change. So, in the final count, who will be in the stands?

Some leaders agree that attendance is tantamount to supporting the Chinese government’s recent actions, which they refuse to do. Thus, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus will not be seen among the spectators.

But other heads-of-state believe that not attending would be, in the words of President George Bush, “an affront to the Chinese people, which may make it more difficult to be able to speak frankly with the Chinese leadership.” Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda echoed Bush’s sentiments. Both will be in attendance at the opening ceremony, making the younger Bush the first sitting American President to attend an Olympic Games abroad.

Because of the politicization of attendance, some leaders have felt pressured to justify their absences. Neither German Chancellor Angela Merkel nor Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper will be at the Games, but both have had to explain that their absence is not out of protest—apparently, their schedules as world leaders are already booked.

In a complicated variation on that theme, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is obliged as the representative of the next host country (London 2012) to attend the closing ceremony, but he will not be attending the opening ceremony. British Liberal Democratic leader Nick Clegg has somehow construed this as doing “the right thing,” meaning withholding endorsement of the Chinese regime. Brown’s spokespeople said he never planned to go to the opening, but that he is “not boycotting.”

And then, of course, there is France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, who in March made his attendance contingent upon Chinese concessions regarding the Dalai Lama and human rights abuses. However, at the recent G8 summit in Japan, Sarkozy dramatically announced that he would be attending the Games. This sent both the EU and China into uproar: the EU Parliament, which supported a boycott, does not want him to go and, after his grandstanding, the Chinese do not want him to come.

Most recently, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has announced his attendance, but he felt no need to explain himself.

Is attendance at these Games necessarily a political statement?

In the words of Hein Verbruggen, chairman of the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) coordination commission, “there is a very thick, fat red line between” politics and sports. According to the IOC, the Olympics are an apolitical event. As such, attendance should not be understood as a statement for or against the Chinese government.

But historically, the politicization of the Olympics is the rule, not the exception. Remember the Black Power salutes by sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos in Mexico City in 1968, the 1980 U.S. boycott of the Moscow Games following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the Soviet boycott four years later in LA.

In each case, the focus was on the athletes, even if in some cases governments dictated their actions. At least the athletes themselves were the either the agent or the medium for politicization of the Games. This year, the athletes are being relatively ignored. Team Darfur, a group including over 130 Olympic athletes, has called for a ceasefire in Darfur and encouraged Steven Spielberg to withdraw as the Olympics’ artistic director. While the press briefly noted Spielberg’s withdrawal, the roll call of dignitaries has since replaced stories of athlete activism.

No fewer than 40 countries are sending representatives to Beijing with positions equivalent to or higher than Secretary of State. But the Games are about the athletes. If there is a political point to be made, let them be the ones to make it. After all, some people might just enjoy the Games – Bush is bringing his family, all of who reputedly love the Olympics.