Protests threaten to overshadow torch relay
There is no appetite in the Olympic movement for any sort of boycotts or sanctions against over its handling of the Tibet issue.
But there is worry that should the protests get out of hand and the Chinese react with the savagery that marked the protests in back in 1989, then events could get out of control.
Senior figures in the have told me that they are watching the events over Tibet with great interest and concern but believe this is an issue for politicians.
One senior Olympic source I spoke to said: "We are following the events very closely. We are in direct touch with our politicians every day. As long as politicians are trading with and there is no trade boycott, how can there be any sporting boycott?
"You cannot use sportsmen as tools. We saw what boycotts did in 1980 in and 1984 in .
"We still have athletes telling us that we prevented them from participating in free and fair competition at the highest level of their sports. They have not forgiven us for that and we cannot have a repeat. The age of boycotts is over."
However, the same Olympic sources also confirmed that there is concern among the politicians they are speaking to about how may react to the protests.
The prospect of protests when the has caused concern among some British politicians both about how the protests will play out here and also how the Chinese handle any dissent in their own homeland.
One senior British politician I spoke to said: "If there is a repeat of Tiananmen Square then all bets are off."
Interestingly, some Olympic sources see the fact that the Olympics and the have focused attention on China's handling of the Tibet issue, and human rights in general, as vindication of the decision to stage the Olympics in Beijing.
A senior Olympic source, who worked hard to help Beijing get the Olympics, told me: "The fact that the torch relay has been marked by protests shows how, by staging the Olympics in China, we have helped open the country up.
"We did the same by staging the games in Moscow in 1980 and also in in 1988. In both cases Russia and South Korea were dictatorships but the Olympics shone a spotlight on them, not immediately but after some time, which helped open these countries up.
"The Olympics is not an instrument for sudden change, it is absurd to expect sports to do what politicians cannot and will not do - after all China has a veto on the United Nations Security Council and nobody protests about that.
"If you want to solve the Tibet issue you have to go to the . But by having the Olympics there people are talking about China and its handling of Tibet. Over time this will bring change."
Not everyone take such a sanguine attitude. And it is ironic that the torch relay which started with Hitler's use of the 1936 Berlin Olympics as a celebration of Nazism, should be seen as an instrument of change.
In recent times the torch relay, while full of the Olympic baggage, has essentially been a commercial journey both for the country hosting the Games and Olympic sponsors.
The Greeks made the most of this for the 2004 games. In theory this should have been the shortest distance for the torch to journey from its home in Olympia to Athens. But the Greeks decided to take it round the world before reaching Athens in what was presented as a celebration of the Olympics returning home but was in fact a very blatant exercise in commercialism.
have long appreciated how they can use the torch relay for their own ends. With various people carrying the torch as it moves from Olympia to the host city, it provides an ideal opportunity for the sponsors to use the relay to promote themselves.
They invite their most valuable customers, important executives and other people they need to cultivate to carry the torch.
Invited guests are flown into to particular cities to take part in the relay. After the relay, dinners and festivities are laid on for the participants. It is seen as a useful commercial tool by the sponsors and a return on their investment in the Olympic movement.
Potential for politicisation of the torch relay has now surfaced with the threat of protests and the Olympic movement will watch with interest the effect this has on sponsors.
The very nature of the torch relay, going through crowded city centres and landmark areas, is designed with sponsors very much in mind - it is meant to advertise the Olympics to all.
The fear for the Olympic movement is that this openness could also provide an ideal opportunity for protests.
Mihir Bose's blog is no longer being updated. You can read recent entries about 91Èȱ¬ Sport's coverage and insights into the latest issues on the 
Comments
Athens simply followed the blatant commercialism template that had been set by Coca Cola Olympics in 1996.
The world's eyes are on them...China need to 'step up to the plate'...they need to make it their year-desperately.
The idea of a complete boycott is absurd (I agree that it is a political issue) but Sarkozy's idea of boycotting the opening ceremony should be definitely considered. As citizens in democratic nations, we have responsibility towards people in other parts of the world who deserve the same.
I agree trade boycotts should come first, but they only hurt the general population most! A sports boycott of the biggest event would put pressure on a country that has no concern for it's neighbors and their sovereignity. It's time the world spoke in one voice, get out of Tibet and let those in exile return to an independent nation. Who knows, we may be preventing something like this happening to Taiwan in the future!
I agree that it's unfair to expect the athletes alone to carry the responsibility for protesting China's human rights record. That's a job for all of us and the torch parade provides numerous good opportunities to do so peacefully and effectively.
Do you really think that the issue is "the Tibet issue"? Calling the problem "the Tibet issue" shows how much attention really is required when it comes to China. Why? The issue is not just one of how the Chinese are currently handling protests in Tibet, but a much larger issue of one government's consistent lack of respect for basic human rights. The "issue" here relates to Tibet currently, but also to how China deals with all minorities and indeed, all those who would try to exercise the freedom of speech that we in the West take so much for granted.
I agree that "you cannot use sportsmen as tools", but then again, if governments are too weak to stand up for what they say they believe in, then is it not up to others? Has the Universal Declaration of Human Rights been forgotten?
Already, so many of the citizens of the world have become so complacent as to become silent when it comes to the sufferings of others. I would hope that at least some of the citizens of the world, athletes included, are brave and strong enough to stand up for those who are prevented from doing so.
If the Chinese people won't do anything about their government, why should the rest of the world give a damn? Every free country has fought a revolutionary war to get there...China will be no different. The current regime will last until the people of China rise up against it, and there is nothing the rest of the world can do about it. History tells us this as clearly as any crystal ball can.
I always find it funny when I listen to people who believe that by saying something to China, that they will pay attention.
For change to happen, it would have to come from the people in China and that is unlikely to happen. Conditions in China have changed, there are not as many restrictions as previously. And as any developed country will tell you, if you introduce consumerism to a populace, politics becomes less important.
Also just how loudly do you want to shout when the country you are shouting at is on the cusp of becoming the most powerful nation in the world (in an economic sense)? Also take note at just how much the current and outgoing dominant superpower listens to other countries, even the ones that are its bestest friends.
All countries and people deserve the right to be free and Tibet is no exception to that but realistically the only way that will happen is if it comes from within. Unless of course invasion of China is considered an option, although Iraq should tell you thats not feasible either.
It seems that some west people purposely extend the political issue to sports.
To these who talked about "human right", you may need to look at Iraq. Do you dare to say No to USA?
Some people just do not want China to be strong because they think China might compete with them and they are so weak and scary to do the game with China.
China will be strong. That is a historic trend. Nobody can stop. Any person or country who is against the trend will suffer for his/her activities.
Cooperation with China is the only way for other countries to follow the world developments.
Chinese people have our own schedule to solve our problems. It is not your business to interfere our domestic affair.
Olympics is an event for all of the poeple in the world. Choosing Beijing was a result of vote which showed most people supposed China can and will hold a successful Olympics.
China is a country who always meets her promise. Chinese government and chinese people will give you a wonderful Olympics.
One world, One dream.
Welcome to China! Welcome to Beijing!
There is no doubt that China will be able to hold a good Olympic games and there is no doubt either that the United States is in the wrong with regards to its handling of the Iraq issue. Human rights violation by the United States is as condemnable as those by China. Human rights violation cannot be condoned irrespective of the culprit. We should only attempt to put ourselves in the position of the victims in Tibet and the plight of their families to recognize their pain and suffering. It is not fair on athletes to be punished through a boycott by no fault of their own but at least a boycott of the opening ceremony could go a long way in making a point, that doesn't hurt the athletes but only portrays them as citizens concerned about others in the world who deserve better.