The summer Olympics is less than 4 months away. I remember following the Olympics from the 1984 LA games onward. The most memorable on for me was probably Barcelona 92, probably because I stood at Espanyol’s home ground and watched unbelievably at the trajectory the archer must have worked out, to light the flames by firing an torch arrow into that receptacle. It was the only Olympic stadium I have ever been in, outside of the MCG.

The flame was always a main feature of the Olympics. In recent times intermittent television coverage has been given to its itinerary as it makes it way to the host city.

Beijing 2008 has cast a whole different shade on this. The fracas in Europe and threats from people like monsieur Sarkozy has politicized something I thought couldn’t be any more politicized.

Hitler did it in the Berlin games and thanks to Jesse ended up with eggs on his face. The black panther salute was another one (was that in Mexico or Rome…). Then Munich 1972 saw that terrible massacre of Israeli athletes and Moscow 1980 saw the US boycott, to be reciprocated in the LA 1984 games. Even the fantastic Sydney 2000 saw racial elements surfacing.

The press has to a large extent played up the supposed negative role of the Chinese in Tibet. I take it that because I live in a western society the press would be classified as the western press with the appropriate contempt it would attract from my pro Chinese friends. I too, question the timing of many of these Tibetan protests. I honestly don’t know the nature of the conflict. Is autonomy the only issue? Why is the west so hell bent on facilitating independence by fringe territories? Out of the blue we saw the Kurds declare independence in Serbia. Apparently the Americans gave the breakup full support. On the other hand we see the English battling for decades against the Irish attempt to have self administration. The message in press reports almost always suggest the culprits are the Irish – they were the first ones to give a face or profile to terrorism- – whereas the English are seen as innocent rulers. If the Tibetans turn violent today, I don’t know if the media would likewise equally treat such violence as unacceptable or would they build on the current flavour of bad Chinese government? The message is a mixed one and little wonder many see this as a west versus the east matter.

I wonder if there has been objective review of the situation, giving space to all views and arguments. And I don’t just refer to the western media. I mean, if the pro-Chinese (in this dispute) chooses to be magnanimous, what argument can it proffer to show that its rule over Tibet is indeed positive and it cant see why it wants to choose independence instead save maybe to attribute this to the Dalai Lama’s agenda to be the outright political leader? Can the pro-Chinese put hand to heart and say Chinese rule is better for Tibet? If not, why resist its attempts for self rule? After all, it has more Indian features than Chinese ones. It really is not at all like a Chinese province in that the people aren’t anywhere near being Chinese.

The same thing could be said of the Uyghur in Xinjiang. From all accounts, they too don’t want the Chinese there.

If we take away the west versus east angle, can China legitimately say it has good reasons to remain in either of these two places? Holding the country together cannot be a good enough reason to continue to suppress ordinary man on the street, or can it?

I don’t know – it’s such a vexed issue. I just want to enjoy a nice Olympics event without the politicizing of even the flaming route…