One Dream Ideal Now a Beijing Nightmare Waiting to Happen

Consider this: in June 2004 the organizers of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing announced that the Games' slogan would be "One World, One Dream". Now consider this: on Tuesday this week at the No1 intermediate people's court in Beijing, the Chinese political activist Hu Jia stood trial accused of "inciting subversion of state power and the socialist system".

Hu's real "crime" has been to spend much of his adult life exposing the brutality of the Chinese government towards those who oppose it - a campaign which reached its ultimate expression in the publication last September of a letter.

"The Real China and the Olympics" (it can be found at tinyurl.com/37efpf) offers more evidence than any reasonable person would need to be convinced that the suggestion that awarding the Games to Beijing would "enhance human rights" was as mendacious as it sounded, when it was made by Chinese officials as they scrambled for the votes of IOC members in 2001.

A few weeks after Hu Jia's letter was published he gave evidence by video link to the European parliament and a few days after that he was removed from his home by police officers. He now faces up to five years in prison.

Some world, some dream.

The most human response to the treatment of good and brave people like Hu Jia is to say the Chinese government should be punished for its conduct - a reaction intensified in recent days by the brutal suppression of the uprising in Tibet.

But if the litany of human rights abuses over the past seven years has taught us anything it is that the barbarians in Beijing couldn't care less what anyone else thinks.

In any case, the realities of a world in which China is the new global superpower means there is little inclination within other governments to impose sanctions of any kind. Meanwhile, the scope for groups such as Human Rights Watch, which has done so much to highlight the cases of people like Hu Jia, to influence Chinese domestic policy is limited, to say the least.

Thank heavens, then, for the coming festival of sport. It is impossible to overstate the importance of this summer's Olympics to Beijing, just as there is no mistaking the impact a boycott of the Games by leading nations would have on the Chinese government's efforts to legitimize their despicable behavior.

So far there is no serious call for such a boycott, but it is coming. Already this week France's foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, has floated the idea of a "VIP boycott", which would involve world leaders staying away from the opening ceremonies.

Human Rights Watch, meanwhile, has called on politicians to "think long and hard" about showing up lest their presence alongside the men who have imprisoned Hu Jia be interpreted as approval. The temptation to take a step further, to reach for the ultimate sanction of a complete boycott, is understandable, but it must be resisted.

The truth is sporting boycotts don't work if they are imposed for the sole reason that we don't like politics of a particular government, as was the case with the boycott of the 1980 Moscow Games.

Even if such boycotts were an effective sanction where would that leave us? Do we then boycott every event hosted by a nation of which we do not approve?

None of this is to give succor to the misguided "sport and politics don't mix" brigade, or to suggest the Chinese government should not be condemned for its conduct. It should, but not by politicians or by athletes. No, the organization which should be charged with embarrassing Beijing into changing its policies is the organization which made the terrible mistake of awarding the Games to China in July 2001, the International Olympic Committee.

Over the past seven years the IOC has made periodic visits to China to assess progress with preparations for the Games, yet has said nothing about progress with the promised "enhancement of human rights". That silence - or rather, moral cowardice - has to end.

It would not require much, just a few words to make it clear the shame that comes with throwing Hu Jia in jail is China's alone. This excerpt from the Olympic Charter should do the job: "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".

How political Fifa fell from the moral high ground

Like the Japanese soldiers hiding in the hills of Borneo awaiting the allied surrender or neo-conservative stragglers still prepared to argue the case for George W Bush, there may still be a few misguided souls laboring under the impression that political expediency plays no part in the machinations of Fifa.

Such naivety is quaint but it has its limits, and those limits were breached by the news that football's world governing body has, in effect, banned international qualifying matches at high altitude. The decision has particular impact on the Bolivia national team, which plays most of its home games in the capital, La Paz (altitude: 11,810ft).

Over the years the Bolivians have compiled an impressive home record, particularly against the two South American superpowers, Brazil and Argentina, who have recorded just three wins between them in Bolivia since 1994 - compared to seven defeats.

Fifa, imposed the ban last year and upheld it last week, citing the health risks of playing competitive matches in the thin air - a decision that has been condemned by, among others, Diego Maradona, who took part in a charity match in La Paz this week for flood victims.

Now it is probably unwise to take too seriously Maradona's guidance on health matters, but there is no denying that if high altitude is a health risk for players then so, too, is playing in extreme heat and humidity. Yet Fifa is not considering a ban on matches in such conditions.

In the circumstances, it is hard to refute Maradona's succinct assessment of Fifa's motives. "The measure is ridiculous, because they want to make Bolivia go somewhere else. It's disgraceful, it was approved by people who have never chased a football, it's political," he said. "Are they trying to change geography?"

Short-order chief perfect for Lions in South Africa

Unbelievably, there is some opposition to the idea that Warren Gatland should be appointed the Lions head coach for next year's tour to South Africa. It is understandable that the Welsh Rugby Union should be opposed - it doesn't want to risk diluting the great man's magic by sharing it around - but if it can be convinced then nobody should need to be. The hardest aspect of the Lions job is to make maximum impact in a limited period of time, which was where the well-known performance enhancement lecturer Sir Clive Woodward failed. Gatland's magnificent effort in turning Wales from slummers to slammers in such short order proves he is the perfect candidate.

Make-up-and-mend time for two Capello fellows

If the reports are to be believed, and Theo Walcott has indeed played his way into the England squad for next week's friendly in Paris, then perhaps Steve Gerrard will find the time during the get-together to offer an apology to the Arsenal player for the entirely unnecessary passage in his autobiography ridiculing the decision to take Walcott to the 2006 World Cup in Germany. The last thing Walcott needed at the time was the derision of a senior colleague, and it says much about the teenager's mental strength, not to mention his skill, that he has progressed enough since to catch the eye of a judge as astute as Fabio Capello.