The 'mianji' (making face) Olympics

The IOC's concern about China's non compliance with all commitments to host the Games appears to be token at best. This especially applies to granting foreign journalists freedom of movement within China's borders from January 1, 2007 to October, 17, 2008.

When pressed during an interview following the Tibet uprising, Kevin Gosper appeared to introduce a new phrase:

China has changed its laws to allow the international press to report on the Olympics. There was some criticism that the internet closed down during the events relating to Tibet in previous weeks but this is not Games time. Our concern is that the press has the freedom to operate as it has at previous Games, at Games time, and I'm satisfied that the Chinese understand the need for this and that they will do it.

This sudden focus, careful wording limited "to report on the Olympics" and repetition of the new term "Games time" raises real cause for concern about just what was agreed, inferred or even achieved by the IOC on this matter. The January 1, 2007 to October 17, 2008 time frame for freedom of movement for the media appears to have been a victim of the delete key and erased from the IOC and AOC memory.

During the run up to and following the conclusion of recent Olympics, foreign journalists and TV crews normally radiate out across the host countries producing a comprehensive cross section of life and landscape in those countries for global distribution. With China's spectacular countryside, then why not China?

The Gosper term "Games time" appears deliberate and seriously confuses the issue and the real meaning of the "IOC agreement" and the time frame for the freedom of movement for the media.

Are we now seeing an exercise in kowtowing and watering down violations just to avoid political unpleasantness, or to hide embarrassment or lack of responsibility in negotiation in the spirit of the Olympics?

It is about time that the IOC and the AOC discloses just what was negotiated with China that is binding, and just what "freedoms" are granted to the media under the IOC agreement.

Other questions could include:

1. where is "Games time" referred to in any IOC related agreement prior to the Tibet incident?;
2. was there a time frame changed from January 1, 2008 to October 17, 2008 to "Games time" and if so, when?;
3. does the granting of "free access" to the Internet by China allow all media throughout China this right, or just those foreign media only covering Olympic events?

The IOC is an international body charged with the responsibility of non politicised, unbiased and fair decision making. The conditions for hosting the Games are there to make an improvement.

High profile international identities have stood up to support their views on breaches of the traditions of the Games. Just where does the IOC stand?